W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments-ig@w3.org > April 2015

RE: [use cases] Use Cases FPWD ready for Call for Consensus

From: <Joerg.Heuer@telekom.de>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 23:32:39 +0200
To: <ij@w3.org>
CC: <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FB5E170315856249A4C381355C027E45028ECFFC9FA0@HE100041.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
Hello Ian,

Thanks for tinkering over my belated remarks. Please find some statements below:


-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org] 
Sent: Mittwoch, 8. April 2015 20:00
To: Heuer, Jörg
Cc: msporny@digitalbazaar.com; public-webpayments-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: [use cases] Use Cases FPWD ready for Call for Consensus

> On Apr 8, 2015, at 10:15 AM, <Joerg.Heuer@telekom.de> <Joerg.Heuer@telekom.de> wrote:
> Hello Manu, all,
> First let me congratulate to the great work you have been doing here. Particularly Manu, but also all the others who have managed to contribute so much more than the few comments I felt able to make in the last 6 months.
> I do approve the publication. Nevertheless - reading through the texts more thoroughly than before, I found a few things which I would love to see addressed  - either before publication or in the course of a future revision:
> Again, the wording has reverted a little towards the online web world as could be seen in the Introduction:
> 	The W3C Web Payments Interest Group is developing a roadmap for standards to improve the interoperability of payments on the Web.

Our use cases show also that our scope goes beyond the browser. I would rather leave the above statement as-is rather than complicate it. However, I think it’s fine to add a new sentence. Do you have one to propose? It seems you want to address “offline” whereas I thought you might want to include “native mobile apps."
Proposed sentence: With the advent of Web APIs in local transactions on the same device or through communication paths like NFC or Bluetooth, offline and convergent use cases across different communication means will be covered to some degree.
> In the past I was able to tweak such sentences into 'interoperability of payments using web technologies'. It would be good if the 'offline world' became more of in-focus now that web technology is making its way into non-open-Internet scenarios. The use cases clearly embrace such scenarios so I have no doubt that the intention will be understood by readers anyhow.
> In 6.2.2 Selection of Payment Instruments greatly fosters confusion 
> between payment instruments and wallets. Especially the Motivation
> 	A payer will most likely use multiple payment services over time. It is important to ensure that the payment services presented to them are consistent across devices, even ones that they have never used before.
> Hints to payment services and wallets probably being the same...? Implying that even though there are different wallet services and devices, they will all be consistent through the use of W3C standards... Wow - that's a lot just as an aside. Not wrong, but might be better understood with a bit more text on such implications.

I don’t interpret that as saying we expect payment instrument to equal wallet. Rather, I think we are avoiding referring to digital wallets or payment agents since that is the architecture that is the consequence of the use cases. Payment services exist (to the use cases) but digital wallets don’t yet (they come later as a solution).

JH> Yes, the wallet comes into play in the beginning (Discovery) but not later on. I understand the point about different abstraction levels - but will readers be able to cope with this? I doubt it. It would be easier to understand if we said ' It is important to ensure that the payment services presented to them are consistent across wallets, even if they are on different devices.' I would put readability above academic abstraction in this case. (Although I hardly ever do in my own writing - so, no objection actually, if you want to leave it as it is.)

> In 6.3.1 under 'Payee-initiated' it sounds like it is explicitly requested that the current practice should not be supported by a W3C standard... Do we do this for real? I'd always try to convince people to do it better, but denying legacy support might doom a good standard which still needs adoption.
> Regards,
> 	Jörg
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Manu Sporny [mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com]
> Sent: Freitag, 3. April 2015 07:03
> To: Web Payments IG
> Subject: [use cases] Use Cases FPWD ready for Call for Consensus
> David, Erik, Ian,
> The Web Payments Use Cases First Public Working Draft document is ready for the Call for Consensus (CfC) starting later today at 12pm. The timestamped document is available here:
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webpayments/raw-file/default/WD/use-cases/2015-

> 04-16/index.html
> The text for the CfC should be something along the lines of:
> PROPOSAL: Request the transition of the Web Payments Use Cases document to a First Public Working Draft with a publication date of April 16th 2015.
> Note that I have not passed the document through the pubrules checker yet and will do so before we pass it off to the pubteam.
> -- manu
> --
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny) Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: The Marathonic Dawn of Web Payments 
> http://manu.sporny.org/2014/dawn-of-web-payments/


Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs

Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447

Received on Thursday, 9 April 2015 21:33:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:08:34 UTC