- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 17:48:48 -0400
- To: public-webpayments-ig@w3.org
On 10/01/2015 12:36 PM, Nick Shearer wrote: > I haven’t had a lot of time to look over the spec, but I will say > that discussion of having a web payments spec include NFC and > offline proximity payments seems like something that drastically > increases the scope of any work the WG has to do. Yes, agreed. To be more clear: * The proposal is to make the NFC Web Payments API a separate deliverable, after Phase I is complete (which gets the core messages right). * Offline proximity payments is something we have to be aware of, but is clearly not in the Web Payments Phase I scope. > There are many additional complications and factors involved for > physical payments - I am not sure I agree with you when you suggest > the messaging formats could remain the same and only the transport > change, for example. Yes, you're right. To be more clear: The Web Payments messages carrying tokenized payment data (roughly 4KB-32KB in size *hand waving*) could probably be used across HTTP or a BTLE connections as-is. However, when it comes to NFC, URLs would most likely have to be exchanged to bootstrap the payments process, which would then be handed off to a more capable device (like a mobile phone's browser). The Web Payments message formats could be used to communicate via the more capable device. -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny) Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: Web Payments: The Architect, the Sage, and the Moral Voice https://manu.sporny.org/2015/payments-collaboration/
Received on Friday, 2 October 2015 21:49:12 UTC