Re: [use cases] Re: Important Accessibility Requirement or Consideration for Web Payments work

Looks like a nice balance to me. Charles?

* katie *

Katie Haritos-Shea @ GMAIL
On Mar 30, 2015 10:09 PM, "Manu Sporny" <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

> On 03/29/2015 05:28 AM, chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:
> >>
> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-ig/commit/fc8c0a2277b1fe80f9813e9be26991c5fe49a7be
> >
> >> Note that this is tricky, since we want to reduce payment
> > "friction".
> >
> > I suspect the way this plays out is that where we do introduce
> > something like that, we allow things like limit-setting (so many
> > transactions, with such-and-such a cap, for a given time period…).
> > Note that this has also been considered important in areas like harm
> > minimisation for gambling systems, as well as being a fairly common
> > practice in managing corporate spending where thresholds are set for
> > reporting requirements (analagously to legal cash transaction
> > reporting requirements as it happens).
>
> Some text has been added to attempt to clarify some of your point, Chaals:
>
>
> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-ig/commit/55ea650d78a046cd3a8b2a8f33f6ca3999da4322
>
> The rest of your point will most likely be made via the pending use
> cases that will most likely go in after the FPWD that include things
> like "budgets" (aka limit-setting / harm-minimization).
>
> -- 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/
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 31 March 2015 02:35:42 UTC