Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Payment app discovery (#155)

@andrewpaliga andrewpaliga, 

Thanks for relating this to issue #110. We also had some discussion around this topic at our February FTF meeting: https://www.w3.org/2016/02/24-wpwg-minutes#item06

I think your point also relates to https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/issues/112
   (Should we support payee knowing user has payee-controlled payment app?)

And I would also relate this to https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/issues/30
  (Should we define nesting/grouping semantics for payment method identifier matching?)

Here's why I make the (less direct) connection to the last issue.

I still have as a design goal that the primary computation done on payment method identifiers is 
equivalence testing (see my PMI notes [1]). But the payee could make different sorts of declarations around these payment identifiers, such as:

   1) I support X 
   2) I do not support Y. (This is useful when X is a set and Y is a member of the set; see issue #30 )
   3) If the user doesn't currently have support for Z, encourage the user to get some
       support for Z, such as by installing the payment app with the following name at this URL. 
       (Your suggestion above.)

      Note that "doesn't have support for Z" could include:
         a) User has an app that supports Z but user has not yet enabled Z
         b) User has no app that supports Z
  
     Mediator behavior would depend on a variety of conditions such as user preference
     for recommendations, etc.

I do not believe we are planning to support payee queries of what the user
has installed, so sending "recommendations" seems like the right approach.

If the API does not support this feature (e.g., in v1), the payee can still 
recommend apps during checkout but before the user pushes on the "buy" button. 

Andrew, can you say more about how useful you think the "suggeted app" featured would
be to merchants? 

Thanks!

Ian

[1] https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/PMI_Notes




---
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/issues/155#issuecomment-213994855