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

> I don't have a good understanding of the use case where the mediator would want to inject app recommendations.

Sorry, I should have provided some more context. I had a conversation with @zkoch about this some time back in which he was concerned about the case when a user has no payment apps that can be used for the current payment request.

This is what motivated him to suggest that the payment request have a set of payment app identifiers (as opposed to payment method identifiers) in his early [registration explainer](https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/blob/gh-pages/proposals/registration.md#defining-a-payment-app).

I believe we've resolved that payment apps will not identify themselves using a payment method identifier but that doesn't solve the issue he raised (which @andrewpaliga has raised here).

> Furthermore, if this is something that browsers want to do, they probably can do so without requiring us to standardize anything.

That's okay but I'd want us to state that the suggestions from the merchant SHOULD take preference over any from the browser, unless there is a good reason to not state that.

> Issue #23 is about payment app ordering. I would suggest splitting your proposal into one part about the API supporting payee-suggested payment apps, and the second part is integrated into #23.

I think in general we SHOULD respect the order of things as provided by the payee. 

This issue is specifically about a list of suggested apps (not payment methods) so I don't agree with splitting it. In any case, #23 is closed and I don't think this information justifies re-opening it.

+1 - that the key here is differentiating between installed and suggested apps. Not sure we need anything in the spec to state this though, I'd imagine the browsers would deal with this as a UI consideration.

---
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-214674515