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

Re: We

From: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 12:29:06 -0400
Message-ID: <560424D2.1060305@digitalbazaar.com>
To: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
CC: Evgeny Vinogradov <jonny@yamoney.ru>, "public-webpayments-ig@w3.org" <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>
On 09/24/2015 05:43 AM, Adrian Hope-Bailie wrote:
>
> *Proposal * The proposal is to use a single phase flow but to allow
> the payee to explicitly request that they wish to "defer payment"
> (possibly limited to a specific set of payment instruments).
>
> This indicator would be passed in the payment request by the payee.
> If the payer selects a credit push instrument and the "defer payment"
> flag is set then the payer will not process the payment but will
> proceed as per the 2 phase flow above and simply return a response to
> the payee indicating which instrument they have selected.

+1

I would add that we will also need to be careful about deciding what
information from the selected push-based instrument is exposed to the
payee and the script on the page. It seems like we'd want to do
something like restrict all information about the payment instrument
except its type. However, that then brings up extensibility concerns,
such as a desire to create instruments where it's safe to expose certain
other pieces of information to the payee.

-- 
Dave Longley
CTO
Digital Bazaar, Inc.
http://digitalbazaar.com
Received on Thursday, 24 September 2015 16:29:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:08:44 UTC