Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] [wg/payments] Web Payments Working Group Charter (Issue #1080)

marcoscaceres left a comment (w3ctag/design-reviews#1080)

Dear Payments Working Group,

Thank you for sharing the draft charter with the TAG for review. Apologies for the delay. 

## On Scope and Digital Wallets, Identity, and Payments

The current scope—“Digital wallets, identity, and payments”—seems quite broad, particularly with respect to identity. While digital wallets can support identity-related use cases, these are often distinct from core payments functionality. TAG recommends that the Payments Working Group scope its work more narrowly around payments and, where appropriate, collaborate with other relevant groups—such as the Federated Identity Working Group and the Verifiable Credentials Working Group—on cross-cutting identity-related topics. The charter should explicitly identify such collaboration points, particularly around areas like “user identification” and “digital credentials,” to reduce duplication and avoid overreach into domains where other groups have deeper expertise.

A related observation appears in the *Motivation and Background* section, which notes a goal to use digital wallets to “address both identity and payments use cases.” While this is a valid long-term aim, the TAG believes it’s important to acknowledge that identity verification and payment processing are often separate concerns, both in architecture and in practice. Many payment scenarios do not require identity verification, and when both are needed, they can often be handled independently. This distinction should inform the group’s priorities and areas of collaboration.  
(Minor note: “phenomena” may not be the best term in this context.)

## On Wallet APIs and Adoption

The *Wallets* section notes that a diverse ecosystem of payment apps has not emerged, despite several API introductions. While developments like the EUDI Wallet initiative have reinvigorated interest, the charter doesn’t clarify whether this lack of adoption stems from architectural deficiencies or external factors.

We recommend clarifying whether the WG intends to explore the causes behind this limited adoption. Is the group planning to investigate and document shortcomings of existing APIs (e.g., Payment Request), and is there a chartered work item or deliverable that reflects that? A clearer articulation of the problem space and the WG’s intended activities would help align future work with observed developer and market needs.

## On Strong Authentication and Digital Wallets

The charter raises important questions about the relationship between potential new digital wallet APIs and existing standards such as Payment Request, Web Authentication, and Secure Payment Confirmation (SPC). Specifically: will new APIs subsume or complement these technologies?

These are timely and worthwhile questions, but the charter does not clarify whether the WG intends to answer them directly. TAG suggests that such questions might be more appropriately explored initially through incubation or in coordination with other groups. If the intention is for the Payments WG to support or participate in such exploration, the charter should state this more clearly. Otherwise, there is a risk of misaligned efforts or premature standardization without broad architectural alignment.

## On Supporting a Diversity of Payment Systems

The charter aims to improve support for payment systems beyond those prevalent in North America and Europe, including those that involve minimal merchant integration or operate without requiring JavaScript. This is a worthy goal.

However, TAG recommends caution in suggesting that "no JavaScript" is inherently preferable. While minimizing dependencies can be beneficial in certain contexts, such approaches involve trade-offs (e.g., reduced developer flexibility). Rather than focusing on specific technical properties like JavaScript presence, the charter might better frame the goal as enhancing the inclusiveness and adaptability of the Web platform for a broader range of global payment flows.

## Summary

The TAG supports the aims of the Payments Working Group and appreciates the clarity of the charter. However, we recommend:

- Clarifying the scope and emphasizing collaboration with identity-focused groups (e.g., FedID, VC WG) where use cases overlap;
- Explicitly stating whether and how the WG intends to investigate gaps in adoption of existing APIs;
- Clarifying whether the WG intends to explore the technical relationships among wallet APIs, Payment Request, SPC, and WebAuthn—and through what mechanisms (e.g., incubation, coordination);
- Reframing the “diverse payment systems” discussion to focus on inclusivity and adaptability rather than technology-specific traits.

We thank the Working Group for the opportunity to review and look forward to continued architectural coordination.

Best regards,  
– The W3C Technical Architecture Group (TAG)


-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1080#issuecomment-2989709773
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1080/2989709773@github.com>