public-webpayments-specs@w3.org from April 2016 by author

Ade Bateman

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update security and privacy considerations sections (#170) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update security and privacy considerations sections (#170) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Spec prohibits currency validation but doesn't define what it is (#175) (Friday, 29 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Spec prohibits currency validation but doesn't define what it is (#175) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Adding support for phone and email (#174) (Friday, 29 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Adding support for phone and email (#174) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add section on internationalization (#53) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should PaymentItems have a type? (#163) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Do we need payment method identifier aliases? (#149) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update security and privacy considerations sections (#170) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Remove issue #119 note and assert that total should be non-negative (#168) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] [api] Section 11 PaymentResponse seems to be missing shippingAddress (#75) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] [api] Section 11 PaymentResponse seems to be missing shippingAddress (#75) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] provide shipping address in PaymentResponse (#139) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] provide shipping address in PaymentResponse (#139) (Friday, 29 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Updated to use [SecureContext] extended attribute. (#172) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add explicit note that shippingOptions is only required if requesting shipping (#128) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add explicit note that shippingOptions is only required if requesting… (#171) (Friday, 29 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add explicit note that shippingOptions is only required if requesting… (#171) (Friday, 29 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update security and privacy considerations sections (#170) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Remove issue #119 note and assert that total should be non-negative (#168) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Fix old reference to items and use total/displayItems (#169) (Thursday, 28 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Fix old reference to items and use total/displayItems (#169) (Thursday, 28 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Remove issue #119 note and assert that total should be non-negative (#168) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Remove issue #48 label. (#165) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Remove issue #48 label. (#165) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should list of accepted payment methods be strings or objects? (#48) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Examples need updating with recent PRs (#164) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Updated examples to reflect changes in recent PRs (#166) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Updated examples to reflect changes in recent PRs (#166) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add previous publication metadata. (#167) (Thursday, 28 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add previous publication metadata. (#167) (Thursday, 28 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Updated examples to reflect changes in recent PRs (#166) (Thursday, 28 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Remove issue #48 label. (#165) (Thursday, 28 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Examples need updating with recent PRs (#164) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Merged PaymentRequest params and tweaked to address some issues (#133) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Merged PaymentRequest params and tweaked to address some issues (#133) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] complete() should take a string argument not boolean (#17) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] complete() should take a string argument not boolean (#17) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Fix #129 (#153) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Fix #129 (#153) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Refactor the supportedMethods and payment specific data (#162) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Refactor the supportedMethods and payment specific data (#162) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Separate total from line items. (#158) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Separate total from line items. (#158) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Constructor should not include "total" in list of items (#18) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update complete() method to take a string and clarify its purpose (#161) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update complete() method to take a string and clarify its purpose (#161) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Separate total from line items. (#158) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update complete() method to take a string and clarify its purpose (#161) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update complete() method to take a string and clarify its purpose (#161) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update complete() method to take a string and clarify its purpose (#161) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update complete() method to take a string and clarify its purpose (#161) (Wednesday, 27 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Refactor the supportedMethods and payment specific data (#162) (Wednesday, 27 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update complete() method to take a string and clarify its purpose (#161) (Wednesday, 27 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Remove id attribute from PaymentItem (#160) (Wednesday, 27 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Remove issue #14 note (#159) (Wednesday, 27 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Separate total from line items. (#158) (Wednesday, 27 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Fix #129 (#153) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] fixing typo (#152) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] fixing typo (#152) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] grammatical updates to the payment method identifier spec (#124) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] grammatical updates to the payment method identifier spec (#124) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Write-up proposal for shipping address fields (#6) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Write-up proposal for shipping address fields (#6) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Specify shipping address fields based on OASIS xAL. (#147) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Specify shipping address fields based on OASIS xAL. (#147) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Flows issue 32 (#131) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Flows issue 32 (#131) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Write-up proposal for shipping address fields (#6) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should payment app registration be included in the conformance criteria of the browser API spec? (#8) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] provide shipping address in PaymentResponse (#139) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Removing references to closed issues #47 and #56. (#144) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] fields in abort() Update paymentrequest.html (#130) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] fields in abort() Update paymentrequest.html (#130) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Remove issue 55 note and add security considerations section. (#142) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add reference to issue #49. (#83) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] grammatical updates to the payment method identifier spec (#124) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Migrate PaymentRequest text from arch to payment request spec. (#110) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] grammatical updates to the payment method identifier spec (#124) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] fields in abort() Update paymentrequest.html (#130) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Combine API parameters into a single request object + options (#15) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Merged PaymentRequest params and tweaked to address some issues (#133) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] provide shipping address in PaymentResponse (#139) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should a payment request be just data, or a programmable object? (#47) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] How do the payer and payee agree on the payment obligation as part of the flow? (#113) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the messages support field-level encryption? (#55) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the payment API be more conversational or less conversational? (#51) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should a payment request be just data, or a programmable object? (#47) (Monday, 18 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Proposed text for issue 23. (#140) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the payment request contain line item details? (#49) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should a payment request be just data, or a programmable object? (#47) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should Payment Method Identifiers and Messages be expressed using a Linked Data Vocabulary? (#45) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] How will the spec address versioning / feature detection? (#33) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the payee be able to inspect the status of a payment? (#28) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] grammatical updates to the payment method identifier spec (#124) (Tuesday, 12 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] codemod user agent to payment mediator in payment request (#137) (Tuesday, 12 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] fields in abort() Update paymentrequest.html (#130) (Tuesday, 12 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Change e.g. to e.g., (#126) (Thursday, 7 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Reference names should have hyphens (#125) (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Replace non-RFC-2119 “may”s in normative text (#117) (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Replace non-RFC-2119 “may”s in normative text (#117) (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] De-duplicate markup for “user agents” def (#116) (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] De-duplicate markup for “user agents” def (#116) (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Basic Card Payment Spec will become a Note not a Rec (#100) (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] [architecture] SotD should indicate it is intended to be a Note (#58) (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] complete() should take a string argument not boolean (#17) (Wednesday, 6 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Proposal to add negative value support (#120) (Tuesday, 5 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Proposal to add negative value support (#120) (Tuesday, 5 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency amount (#101) (Saturday, 2 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency amount (#101) (Saturday, 2 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency amount (#101) (Saturday, 2 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency amount (#101) (Saturday, 2 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency amount (#101) (Saturday, 2 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency amount (#101) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add option 1b to payment method identifier spec. (#108) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add option 1b to payment method identifier spec. (#108) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Resubmitting because the document moved (#106) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Resubmitting because the document moved (#106) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Issue marker requesting security considerations section (#98) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Issue marker requesting security considerations section (#98) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Alternative issue marker for issue#38 (#96) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Alternative issue marker for issue#38 (#96) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #55. (#87) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #55. (#87) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #51. (#85) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #51. (#85) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #50. (#84) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #50. (#84) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add reference to issue #48. (#82) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add reference to issue #48. (#82) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add reference to issue #47. (#81) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add reference to issue #47. (#81) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #39 (#77) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #39 (#77) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Some friendly editorial changes (#64) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Some friendly editorial changes (#64) (Friday, 1 April)

Adrian Hope-Bailie

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update security and privacy considerations sections (#170) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Fix old reference to items and use total/displayItems (#169) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Remove issue #119 note and assert that total should be non-negative (#168) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should well-known identifiers be used for ubiquitous payment methods (#10) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Do we need payment method identifier aliases? (#149) (Friday, 29 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Is it neccessary to distinguish the origin of data provided in the payment response, and how would we do it? (#173) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Updated to use [SecureContext] extended attribute. (#172) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update security and privacy considerations sections (#170) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update security and privacy considerations sections (#170) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Fix old reference to items and use total/displayItems (#169) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add previous publication metadata. (#167) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What semantics is needed for payment method specific data? (#143) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Do we need payment method identifier aliases? (#149) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Do we need payment method identifier aliases? (#149) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Consider revising the design of complete() (#122) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should PaymentItems have a type? (#163) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Combine API parameters into a single request object + options (#15) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] complete does not talk to the Payment App (#129) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] complete does not talk to the Payment App (#129) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Migrate PaymentRequest text from arch to payment request spec. (#110) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Fix #129 (#153) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Support for gift cards and discount codes (#145) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update complete() method to take a string and clarify its purpose (#161) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Remove id attribute from PaymentItem (#160) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Payment app discovery (#155) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Fix #129 (#153) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] BasicCardResponse: cardholderName should be optional. (#134) (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Payment app discovery (#155) (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Fix #129 (#153) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Fix #129 (#153) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Payment app discovery (#155) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Constructor should not include "total" in list of items (#18) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Support for negative amounts (#119) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Support for negative amounts (#119) (Monday, 25 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the payment mediator pass all payment method data to the payment app or just relevant data? (#157) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the browser API support the concept of "messages"? (#154) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Payment app discovery (#155) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Fix #129 (#153) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the browser API support the concept of "messages"? (#154) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the browser API support the concept of "messages"? (#154) (Friday, 22 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the browser API support the concept of "messages"? (#154) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the list of transaction types be extensible? (#112) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the list of transaction types be extensible? (#112) (Friday, 22 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Fix #129 (#153) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What semantics is needed for payment method specific data? (#143) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] BasicCardResponse: cardholderName should be optional. (#134) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] BasicCardResponse: cardholderName should be optional. (#134) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Can the merchant influence order of presentation of payment apps to the user (#23) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Proposed text for issue 23. (#140) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Remove issue 55 note and add security considerations section. (#142) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Removing references to closed issues #47 and #56. (#144) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Handling non-decimal currencies (#14) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Handling non-decimal currencies (#14) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should payment app registration be included in the conformance criteria of the browser API spec? (#8) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should payment app registration be included in the conformance criteria of the browser API spec? (#8) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Flows issue 32 (#131) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Flows issue 32 (#131) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should payment method specifications contain WebIDL? (#132) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Write-up proposal for shipping address fields (#6) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should payment method specifications contain WebIDL? (#132) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Flows issue 32 (#131) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: A new document structure for this API (#138) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What is the extensibility mechanism for the payment request and response messages? (#146) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Issue Prioritisation Explainer (#105) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Issue Prioritisation Explainer (#105) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Payment instrument installation is platform-dependent (#8) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Different card schemes have different mandatory field requirements (#9) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Different card schemes have different mandatory field requirements (#9) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Write-up initial proposal for payment app registration spec (#12) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Remove issue 55 note and add security considerations section. (#142) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Removing references to closed issues #47 and #56. (#144) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Support for gift cards and discount codes (#145) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What is the extensibility mechanism for the payment request and response messages? (#146) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] provide shipping address in PaymentResponse (#139) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] provide shipping address in PaymentResponse (#139) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the payee be able to inspect the status of a payment? (#28) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] How are payment requests and responses passed between the browser and third-party native wallets? (#50) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] API Data Integrity (#31) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Any plan to allow this API to be called by non-merchants? (#35) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] How do organizations layer additional information in the core payment messages? (#40) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] How do organizations layer additional information in the core payment messages? (#40) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] What is the extensibility mechanism for the payment request and response messages? (#146) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] fields in abort() Update paymentrequest.html (#130) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] provide shipping address in PaymentResponse (#139) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] [api] Section 11 PaymentResponse seems to be missing shippingAddress (#75) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should a payment method identifier (URL) resolve to a machine readable resource that describes it? (#46) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] codemod user agent to payment mediator in payment request (#137) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] codemod user agent to payment mediator in payment request (#137) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What component does the payment method intersection? (#103) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should a payment request be just data, or a programmable object? (#47) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should a payment request be just data, or a programmable object? (#47) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Merged PaymentRequest params and tweaked to address some issues (#133) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add reference to issue #45. (#79) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add reference to issue #49. (#83) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the payment request contain line item details? (#49) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] fields in abort() Update paymentrequest.html (#130) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] How do the payer and payee agree on the payment obligation as part of the flow? (#113) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Propose a payment method specification that includes an example of field level security (#141) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the messages support field-level encryption? (#55) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the messages support field-level encryption? (#55) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the payment API be more conversational or less conversational? (#51) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should a payment request be just data, or a programmable object? (#47) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should Payment Method Identifiers and Messages be expressed using a Linked Data Vocabulary? (#45) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Proposed text for issue 23. (#140) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should a payment request be just data, or a programmable object? (#47) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Merged PaymentRequest params and tweaked to address some issues (#133) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Merged PaymentRequest params and tweaked to address some issues (#133) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Specification to include Flow Diagram (#32) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the payment request contain line item details? (#49) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: A new document structure for this API (#138) (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: A new document structure for this API (#138) (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: A new document structure for this API (#138) (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: A new document structure for this API (#138) (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: A new document structure for this API (#138) (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: A new document structure for this API (#138) (Tuesday, 12 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] grammatical updates to the payment method identifier spec (#124) (Tuesday, 12 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] codemod user agent to payment mediator in payment request (#137) (Tuesday, 12 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: A new document structure for this API (#138) (Tuesday, 12 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] fields in abort() Update paymentrequest.html (#130) (Tuesday, 12 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the merchant be able to request your email and recipient phone number (#1) (Tuesday, 12 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Merged PaymentRequest params and tweaked to address some issues (#133) (Monday, 11 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Merged PaymentRequest params and tweaked to address some issues (#133) (Monday, 11 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the merchant be able to request your email and recipient phone number (#1) (Monday, 11 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Merged PaymentRequest params and tweaked to address some issues (#133) (Monday, 11 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Merged PaymentRequest params and tweaked to address some issues (#133) (Monday, 11 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Merged PaymentRequest params and tweaked to address some issues (#133) (Monday, 11 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Specification to include Flow Diagram (#32) (Monday, 11 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Flows issue 32 (#131) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the messages support field-level encryption? (#55) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] How do the payer and payee agree on the payment obligation as part of the flow? (#113) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the Payment Request API only be available in a top-level browsing context? (#2) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the web page be able to provide status information before calling complete() (#5) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the API handle pre-auth, recurring payments, and similar scenarios (#19) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Use navigator.payments singleton, factory method, or PaymentRequest constructor (#16) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should payment method specifications contain WebIDL? (#132) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add reference to issue #45. (#79) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Merged PaymentRequest params and tweaked to address some issues (#133) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the payment request contain line item details? (#49) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add PaymentItem type to deal with transaction types (#111) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add PaymentItem type to deal with transaction types (#111) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Support for negative amounts (#119) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Flows issue 32 (#131) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Specification to include Flow Diagram (#32) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should API support billing address capture (for tax computation)? (#27) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Merged PaymentRequest params and tweaked to address some issues (#133) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the merchant be able to request your email and recipient phone number (#1) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the merchant be able to request your email and recipient phone number (#1) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Constructor should not include "total" in list of items (#18) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Combine API parameters into a single request object + options (#15) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Merged PaymentRequest params and tweaked to address some issues (#133) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to vary amounts depending on payment method (#4) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should list of accepted payment methods be strings or objects? (#48) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Merged PaymentRequest params and tweaked to address some issues (#133) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to provide amounts in more than one currency (#3) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Merged PaymentRequest params and tweaked to address some issues (#133) (Sunday, 10 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Merged PaymentRequest params and tweaked to address some issues (#133) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] How are web-based payment apps supported? (#39) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Specification of required fields (#114) (Sunday, 10 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should payment method specifications contain WebIDL? (#132) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] grammatical updates to the payment method identifier spec (#124) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Reference names should have hyphens (#125) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Change e.g. to e.g., (#126) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] fields in abort() Update paymentrequest.html (#130) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] fields in abort() Update paymentrequest.html (#130) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] fields in abort() Update paymentrequest.html (#130) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Constructor should not include "total" in list of items (#18) (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the merchant be able to request your email and recipient phone number (#1) (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the web page be able to provide status information before calling complete() (#5) (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Use navigator.payments singleton, factory method, or PaymentRequest constructor (#16) (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Combine API parameters into a single request object + options (#15) (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Review and respond to Andrew Betts’ TAG review of the spec (#118) (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to vary amounts depending on payment method (#4) (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Review and respond to Andrew Betts’ TAG review of the spec (#118) (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Combine API parameters into a single request object + options (#15) (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Use navigator.payments singleton, factory method, or PaymentRequest constructor (#16) (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the web page be able to provide status information before calling complete() (#5) (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the merchant be able to request your email and recipient phone number (#1) (Thursday, 7 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add explicit note that shippingOptions is only required if requesting shipping (#128) (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Constructor should not include "total" in list of items (#18) (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Can the merchant influence order of presentation of payment apps to the user (#23) (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the Payment Request API only be available in a top-level browsing context? (#2) (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should show() be renamed? (#127) (Thursday, 7 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should show() be renamed? (#127) (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Use navigator.payments singleton, factory method, or PaymentRequest constructor (#16) (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] How do organizations layer additional information in the core payment messages? (#40) (Monday, 4 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Consider revising the design of complete() (#122) (Monday, 4 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Combine API parameters into a single request object + options (#15) (Monday, 4 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update Introduction to describe actors better (#121) (Monday, 4 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] How do the payer and payee agree on the payment obligation as part of the flow? (#113) (Monday, 4 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should a website be able to provide a label for the "Buy" or "Checkout" button displayed in the payment app? (#56) (Monday, 4 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should a website be able to provide a label for the "Buy" or "Checkout" button displayed in the payment app? (#56) (Monday, 4 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add PaymentItem type to deal with transaction types (#111) (Monday, 4 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Proposal to add negative value support (#120) (Monday, 4 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Proposal to add negative value support (#120) (Monday, 4 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Support for negative amounts (#119) (Monday, 4 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add reference to issue #45. (#79) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency amount (#101) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should a website be able to provide a label for the "Buy" or "Checkout" button displayed in the payment app? (#56) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] How do the payer and payee agree on the payment obligation as part of the flow? (#113) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add PaymentItem type to deal with transaction types (#111) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] complete() should take a string argument not boolean (#17) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add PaymentItem type to deal with transaction types (#111) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should we standardise a callback mechanism for payment apps to communicate to 3rd parties? (#109) (Friday, 1 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] How do the payer and payee agree on the payment obligation as part of the flow? (#113) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should a website be able to provide a label for the "Buy" or "Checkout" button displayed in the payment app? (#56) (Friday, 1 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the list of transaction types be extensible? (#112) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add PaymentItem type to deal with transaction types (#111) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the API handle pre-auth, recurring payments, and similar scenarios (#19) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add PaymentItem type to deal with transaction types (#111) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency amount (#101) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency amount (#101) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add PaymentItem type to deal with transaction types (#111) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should a payment app identifier (URL) or a payment method identifier (URL) resolve to a machine readable resource that describes it? (#46) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the payment request contain line item details? (#49) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should we standardise a callback mechanism for payment apps to communicate to 3rd parties? (#109) (Friday, 1 April)

Andre Lyver

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Support for negative amounts (#119) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Propose a payment method specification that includes an example of field level security (#141) (Wednesday, 20 April)

Andrew Betts

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] How do the payer and payee agree on the payment obligation as part of the flow? (#113) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Use navigator.payments singleton, factory method, or PaymentRequest constructor (#16) (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] How do the payer and payee agree on the payment obligation as part of the flow? (#113) (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the API handle pre-auth, recurring payments, and similar scenarios (#19) (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add PaymentItem type to deal with transaction types (#111) (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Use navigator.payments singleton, factory method, or PaymentRequest constructor (#16) (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the merchant be able to request your email and recipient phone number (#1) (Friday, 8 April)

Andrew Paliga

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Payment app discovery (#155) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Payment app discovery (#155) (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Payment app discovery (#155) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Payment app discovery (#155) (Monday, 25 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Payment app discovery (#155) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Support for gift cards and discount codes (#145) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Support for gift cards and discount codes (#145) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Support for gift cards and discount codes (#145) (Tuesday, 19 April)

Axel Nennker

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should payment method specifications contain WebIDL? (#132) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should payment method specifications contain WebIDL? (#132) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should payment method specifications contain WebIDL? (#132) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What is the extensibility mechanism for the payment request and response messages? (#146) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] fields in abort() Update paymentrequest.html (#130) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Flows issue 32 (#131) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Flows issue 32 (#131) (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Flows issue 32 (#131) (Friday, 8 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] fields in abort() Update paymentrequest.html (#130) (Friday, 8 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] complete does not talk to the Payment App (#129) (Friday, 8 April)

Dave Longley

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update complete() method to take a string and clarify its purpose (#161) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update complete() method to take a string and clarify its purpose (#161) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the payment mediator pass all payment method data to the payment app or just relevant data? (#157) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the payment mediator pass all payment method data to the payment app or just relevant data? (#157) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the payment mediator pass all payment method data to the payment app or just relevant data? (#157) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the browser API support the concept of "messages"? (#154) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Fix #129 (#153) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What is the format for payment method identifiers for distributed extensibility (#11) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the browser API support the concept of "messages"? (#154) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] How are web-based payment apps supported? (#39) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the browser API support the concept of "messages"? (#154) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the browser API support the concept of "messages"? (#154) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should payment method specifications contain WebIDL? (#132) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should payment app registration be included in the conformance criteria of the browser API spec? (#8) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What is the extensibility mechanism for the payment request and response messages? (#146) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What is the extensibility mechanism for the payment request and response messages? (#146) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Any plan to allow this API to be called by non-merchants? (#35) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What is the extensibility mechanism for the payment request and response messages? (#146) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What semantics is needed for payment method specific data? (#143) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What semantics is needed for payment method specific data? (#143) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What semantics is needed for payment method specific data? (#143) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What semantics is needed for payment method specific data? (#143) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should Payment Method Identifiers and Messages be expressed using a Linked Data Vocabulary? (#45) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: A new document structure for this API (#138) (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Merged PaymentRequest params and tweaked to address some issues (#133) (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should show() be renamed? (#127) (Saturday, 9 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the merchant be able to request your email and recipient phone number (#1) (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the merchant be able to request your email and recipient phone number (#1) (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] complete() should take a string argument not boolean (#17) (Wednesday, 6 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency amount (#101) (Saturday, 2 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency amount (#101) (Saturday, 2 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency amount (#101) (Saturday, 2 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency amount (#101) (Saturday, 2 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency amount (#101) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency amount (#101) (Friday, 1 April)

David Illsley

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add PaymentItem type to deal with transaction types (#111) (Friday, 1 April)

David Jackson

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Wednesday, 20 April)

dezell

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should payment method specifications contain WebIDL? (#132) (Sunday, 10 April)

djackso3

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to vary amounts depending on payment method (#4) (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the merchant be able to request your email and recipient phone number (#1) (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should API support billing address capture (for tax computation)? (#27) (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should API support billing address capture (for tax computation)? (#27) (Friday, 8 April)

Erik Wilde

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Do we need payment method identifier aliases? (#149) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Do we need payment method identifier aliases? (#149) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Wednesday, 27 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Sunday, 24 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Sunday, 24 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Sunday, 24 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Saturday, 23 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] General Comment on Registry Design (#148) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: A new document structure for this API (#138) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] General Comment on Registry Design (#148) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Thursday, 21 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] fixing typo (#152) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: A new document structure for this API (#138) (Thursday, 21 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Registry Access/Handling Registry Change (#151) (Thursday, 21 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Thursday, 21 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifier Aliases (#149) (Thursday, 21 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] General Comment on Registry Design (#148) (Thursday, 21 April)

Gregory Estrade

• [w3c/browser-payment-api] BasicCardResponse: cardholderName should be optional. (#134) (Sunday, 10 April)

hober

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Fix #129 (#153) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Fix #129 (#153) (Tuesday, 26 April)

HubleGiter

• [w3c/browser-payment-api] De-duplicate markup for “user agents” def (#156) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Adding baseline CONTRIBUTING.md (c5b89a3) (Sunday, 24 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Adding baseline README.md (c68b812) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Adding baseline README.md (c68b812) (Friday, 22 April)

ianbjacobs

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update security and privacy considerations sections (#170) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Write-up initial proposal for payment app registration spec (#12) (Wednesday, 27 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Payment app discovery (#155) (Wednesday, 27 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the payment mediator pass all payment method data to the payment app or just relevant data? (#157) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Payment app discovery (#155) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Payment app discovery (#155) (Sunday, 24 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] How are payment apps shared between different browser brands? (#38) (Sunday, 24 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] How are payment apps shared between different browser brands? (#38) (Sunday, 24 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the browser API support the concept of "messages"? (#154) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What is the format for payment method identifiers for distributed extensibility (#11) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What semantics is needed for payment method specific data? (#143) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Constructor should not include "total" in list of items (#18) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What is the format for payment method identifiers for distributed extensibility (#11) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: A new document structure for this API (#138) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] General Comment on Registry Design (#148) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should payment app registration be included in the conformance criteria of the browser API spec? (#8) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should payment app registration be included in the conformance criteria of the browser API spec? (#8) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: A new document structure for this API (#138) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Support for gift cards and discount codes (#145) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Support for gift cards and discount codes (#145) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What semantics is needed for payment method specific data? (#143) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What semantics is needed for payment method specific data? (#143) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Migrate PaymentRequest text from arch to payment request spec. (#110) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What semantics is needed for payment method specific data? (#143) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] What semantics is needed for payment method specific data? (#143) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should Payment Method Identifiers and Messages be expressed using a Linked Data Vocabulary? (#45) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: A new document structure for this API (#138) (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: A new document structure for this API (#138) (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: A new document structure for this API (#138) (Tuesday, 12 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] codemod user agent to payment mediator in payment request (#137) (Tuesday, 12 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the merchant be able to request your email and recipient phone number (#1) (Monday, 11 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the merchant be able to request your email and recipient phone number (#1) (Monday, 11 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should show() be renamed? (#127) (Monday, 11 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Flows issue 32 (#131) (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Flows issue 32 (#131) (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the merchant be able to request your email and recipient phone number (#1) (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the merchant be able to request your email and recipient phone number (#1) (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the web page be able to provide status information before calling complete() (#5) (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add option 1b to payment method identifier spec. (#108) (Wednesday, 6 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] API Data Integrity (#31) (Monday, 4 April)

Jason Normore

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update complete() method to take a string and clarify its purpose (#161) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] complete() should take a string argument not boolean (#17) (Friday, 1 April)

Jeff Burdges

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the merchant be able to request your email and recipient phone number (#1) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] How are payment apps shared between different browser brands? (#38) (Sunday, 24 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the browser API support the concept of "messages"? (#154) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] provide shipping address in PaymentResponse (#139) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Specification of required fields (#114) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the messages support field-level encryption? (#55) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should API support billing address capture (for tax computation)? (#27) (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should we standardise a callback mechanism for payment apps to communicate to 3rd parties? (#109) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the API handle pre-auth, recurring payments, and similar scenarios (#19) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should we standardise a callback mechanism for payment apps to communicate to 3rd parties? (#109) (Friday, 1 April)

kirkalx

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Wednesday, 27 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Support for negative amounts (#119) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Constructor should not include "total" in list of items (#18) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Constructor should not include "total" in list of items (#18) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Payment app discovery (#155) (Sunday, 24 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Payment app discovery (#155) (Sunday, 24 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Sunday, 24 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Sunday, 24 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Sunday, 24 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Sunday, 24 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Payment app discovery (#155) (Saturday, 23 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Saturday, 23 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Constructor should not include "total" in list of items (#18) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] provide partial shipping address in PaymentRequest and full shipping … (#136) (Monday, 11 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the merchant be able to request your email and recipient phone number (#1) (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Wednesday, 6 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add option 1b to payment method identifier spec. (#108) (Tuesday, 5 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Support for negative amounts (#119) (Tuesday, 5 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Support for negative amounts (#119) (Monday, 4 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency amount (#101) (Saturday, 2 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should a payment app identifier (URL) or a payment method identifier (URL) resolve to a machine readable resource that describes it? (#46) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency amount (#101) (Friday, 1 April)

Manu Sporny

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What is the format for payment method identifiers for distributed extensibility (#11) (Saturday, 30 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Migrate PaymentRequest text from arch to payment request spec. (#110) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Migrate PaymentRequest text from arch to payment request spec. (#110) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update complete() method to take a string and clarify its purpose (#161) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Separate total from line items. (#158) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update complete() method to take a string and clarify its purpose (#161) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Refactor the supportedMethods and payment specific data (#162) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the browser API support the concept of "messages"? (#154) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] How are web-based payment apps supported? (#39) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should payment method specifications contain WebIDL? (#132) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What is the extensibility mechanism for the payment request and response messages? (#146) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should payment app registration be included in the conformance criteria of the browser API spec? (#8) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: A new document structure for this API (#138) (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: A new document structure for this API (#138) (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: A new document structure for this API (#138) (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: A new document structure for this API (#138) (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: A new document structure for this API (#138) (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: A new document structure for this API (#138) (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: A new document structure for this API (#138) (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: A new document structure for this API (#138) (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: A new document structure for this API (#138) (Wednesday, 13 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Merged PaymentRequest params and tweaked to address some issues (#133) (Monday, 11 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Merged PaymentRequest params and tweaked to address some issues (#133) (Monday, 11 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Specification to include Flow Diagram (#32) (Monday, 11 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Constructor should not include "total" in list of items (#18) (Monday, 11 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Merged PaymentRequest params and tweaked to address some issues (#133) (Monday, 11 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Merged PaymentRequest params and tweaked to address some issues (#133) (Monday, 11 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Merged PaymentRequest params and tweaked to address some issues (#133) (Monday, 11 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Merged PaymentRequest params and tweaked to address some issues (#133) (Monday, 11 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Merged PaymentRequest params and tweaked to address some issues (#133) (Monday, 11 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Merged PaymentRequest params and tweaked to address some issues (#133) (Monday, 11 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should show() be renamed? (#127) (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the merchant be able to request your email and recipient phone number (#1) (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Constructor should not include "total" in list of items (#18) (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the merchant be able to request your email and recipient phone number (#1) (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the merchant be able to request your email and recipient phone number (#1) (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Use navigator.payments singleton, factory method, or PaymentRequest constructor (#16) (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Migrate PaymentRequest text from arch to payment request spec. (#110) (Wednesday, 6 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Combine API parameters into a single request object + options (#15) (Monday, 4 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Migrate PaymentRequest text from arch to payment request spec. (#110) (Friday, 1 April)

mattsaxon

• [w3c/browser-payment-api] API flow (#177) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Fix #129 (#153) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] BasicCardResponse: cardholderName should be optional. (#134) (Friday, 29 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Required fields (#176) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What semantics is needed for payment method specific data? (#143) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] BasicCardResponse: cardholderName should be optional. (#134) (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] BasicCardResponse: cardholderName should be optional. (#134) (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Specification of required fields (#114) (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Specification of required fields (#114) (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Flows issue 32 (#131) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Flows issue 32 (#131) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: A new document structure for this API (#138) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Specification to include Flow Diagram (#32) (Friday, 15 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] BasicCardResponse: cardholderName should be optional. (#134) (Friday, 15 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: A new document structure for this API (#138) (Wednesday, 13 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the merchant be able to request your email and recipient phone number (#1) (Monday, 11 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Specification to include Flow Diagram (#32) (Monday, 11 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Specification to include Flow Diagram (#32) (Monday, 11 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Specification of required fields (#114) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Flows issue 32 (#131) (Saturday, 9 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Flows issue 32 (#131) (Saturday, 9 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to vary amounts depending on payment method (#4) (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to vary amounts depending on payment method (#4) (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the merchant be able to request your email and recipient phone number (#1) (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Specification to include Flow Diagram (#32) (Friday, 8 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Flows issue 32 (#131) (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] How do the payer and payee agree on the payment obligation as part of the flow? (#113) (Saturday, 2 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should a website be able to provide a label for the "Buy" or "Checkout" button displayed in the payment app? (#56) (Saturday, 2 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Gh pages (#114) (Saturday, 2 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Specifying Mandatory Data (#97) (Saturday, 2 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Specifying Mandatory Data (#97) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] How do the payer and payee agree on the payment obligation as part of the flow? (#113) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] complete() should take a string argument not boolean (#17) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add PaymentItem type to deal with transaction types (#111) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] How do the payer and payee agree on the payment obligation as part of the flow? (#113) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should a website be able to provide a label for the "Buy" or "Checkout" button displayed in the payment app? (#56) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add PaymentItem type to deal with transaction types (#111) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the API handle pre-auth, recurring payments, and similar scenarios (#19) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] complete() should take a string argument not boolean (#17) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add PaymentItem type to deal with transaction types (#111) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add PaymentItem type to deal with transaction types (#111) (Friday, 1 April)

Michael[tm] Smith

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What is the format for payment method identifiers for distributed extensibility (#11) (Saturday, 30 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Spec prohibits currency validation but doesn't define what it is (#175) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add section on internationalization (#53) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should PaymentItems have a type? (#163) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] De-duplicate markup for “user agents” def (#156) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Migrate PaymentRequest text from arch to payment request spec. (#110) (Sunday, 24 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What is the format for payment method identifiers for distributed extensibility (#11) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What is the format for payment method identifiers for distributed extensibility (#11) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] grammatical updates to the payment method identifier spec (#124) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should payment method specifications contain WebIDL? (#132) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should show() be renamed? (#127) (Saturday, 9 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Use navigator.payments singleton, factory method, or PaymentRequest constructor (#16) (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Support for negative amounts (#119) (Tuesday, 5 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] How do organizations layer additional information in the core payment messages? (#40) (Monday, 4 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Consider revising the design of complete() (#122) (Monday, 4 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Combine API parameters into a single request object + options (#15) (Monday, 4 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update Introduction to describe actors better (#121) (Monday, 4 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Review and respond to Andrew Betts’ TAG review of the spec (#118) (Sunday, 3 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Replace non-RFC-2219 “may”s in normative text (#117) (Sunday, 3 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] De-duplicate markup for “user agents” def (#116) (Sunday, 3 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Make other Payments-drafts refs be absolute URLs (#115) (Saturday, 2 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should a website be able to provide a label for the "Buy" or "Checkout" button displayed in the payment app? (#56) (Saturday, 2 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] How do the payer and payee agree on the payment obligation as part of the flow? (#113) (Saturday, 2 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Specifying Mandatory Data (#97) (Saturday, 2 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should a website be able to provide a label for the "Buy" or "Checkout" button displayed in the payment app? (#56) (Saturday, 2 April)

Nick S

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Spec prohibits currency validation but doesn't define what it is (#175) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Remove issue #119 note and assert that total should be non-negative (#168) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Payment app discovery (#155) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Constructor should not include "total" in list of items (#18) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Support for negative amounts (#119) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Constructor should not include "total" in list of items (#18) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Write-up proposal for shipping address fields (#6) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Write-up proposal for shipping address fields (#6) (Thursday, 21 April)

Nick Telford-Reed

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: A new document structure for this API (#138) (Thursday, 21 April)

Rouslan Solomakhin

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Payment app discovery (#155) (Saturday, 23 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Payment app discovery (#155) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Write-up proposal for shipping address fields (#6) (Thursday, 21 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Specify shipping address fields based on OASIS xAL. (#147) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Write-up proposal for shipping address fields (#6) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Write-up proposal for shipping address fields (#6) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Write-up proposal for shipping address fields (#6) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should a website be able to provide a label for the "Buy" or "Checkout" button displayed in the payment app? (#56) (Friday, 1 April)

rvm4

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What is the format for payment method identifiers for distributed extensibility (#11) (Saturday, 30 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should well-known identifiers be used for ubiquitous payment methods (#10) (Saturday, 30 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should well-known identifiers be used for ubiquitous payment methods (#10) (Saturday, 30 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should PaymentItems have a type? (#163) (Saturday, 30 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should PaymentItems have a type? (#163) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Remove issue #14 note (#159) (Wednesday, 27 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Separate total from line items. (#158) (Wednesday, 27 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Remove id attribute from PaymentItem (#160) (Wednesday, 27 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Remove id attribute from PaymentItem (#160) (Wednesday, 27 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] grammatical updates to the payment method identifier spec (#124) (Thursday, 21 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] provide shipping address in PaymentResponse (#139) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] provide shipping address in PaymentResponse (#139) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] provide partial shipping address in PaymentRequest and full shipping … (#136) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] provide partial shipping address in PaymentRequest and full shipping … (#136) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] [api] Change e.g. to e.g., (#66) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Change e.g. to e.g., (#126) (Sunday, 10 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] codemod user agent to payment mediator in payment request (#137) (Sunday, 10 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] provide partial shipping address in PaymentRequest and full shipping … (#136) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] provide partial shipping address in PaymentRequest and full shipping … (#135) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] provide partial shipping address in PaymentRequest and full shipping … (#135) (Sunday, 10 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] provide partial shipping address in PaymentRequest and full shipping … (#135) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] [api] Section 11 PaymentResponse seems to be missing shippingAddress (#75) (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] How can short payment method identifiers be successful (#123) (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] How can short payment method identifiers be successful (#123) (Thursday, 7 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] grammatical updates to the payment method identifier spec (#124) (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] How can short payment method identifiers be successful (#123) (Thursday, 7 April)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] How can short payment method identifiers be successful (#123) (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Make other Payments-drafts refs be absolute URLs (#115) (Wednesday, 6 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Support for negative amounts (#119) (Wednesday, 6 April)

Sebastien Domergue

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Propose a payment method specification that includes an example of field level security (#141) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the payment request contain line item details? (#49) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the payment request contain line item details? (#49) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Support for negative amounts (#119) (Monday, 11 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Support for negative amounts (#119) (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] How do the payer and payee agree on the payment obligation as part of the flow? (#113) (Thursday, 7 April)

Shane McCarron

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What is the format for payment method identifiers for distributed extensibility (#11) (Saturday, 30 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should PaymentItems have a type? (#163) (Saturday, 30 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Payment app discovery (#155) (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Remove issue #119 note and assert that total should be non-negative (#168) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should PaymentItems have a type? (#163) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should PaymentItems have a type? (#163) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update complete() method to take a string and clarify its purpose (#161) (Wednesday, 27 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Payment app discovery (#155) (Sunday, 24 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Payment app discovery (#155) (Sunday, 24 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the browser API support the concept of "messages"? (#154) (Saturday, 23 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What is the format for payment method identifiers for distributed extensibility (#11) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the browser API support the concept of "messages"? (#154) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Constructor should not include "total" in list of items (#18) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] General Comment on Registry Design (#148) (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] General Comment on Registry Design (#148) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should payment method specifications contain WebIDL? (#132) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What is the extensibility mechanism for the payment request and response messages? (#146) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] provide shipping address in PaymentResponse (#139) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Support for gift cards and discount codes (#145) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Propose a payment method specification that includes an example of field level security (#141) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Merged PaymentRequest params and tweaked to address some issues (#133) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Propose a payment method specification that includes an example of field level security (#141) (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Support for negative amounts (#119) (Monday, 11 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] grammatical updates to the payment method identifier spec (#124) (Monday, 11 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should API support billing address capture (for tax computation)? (#27) (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] How can short payment method identifiers be successful (#123) (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Support for negative amounts (#119) (Tuesday, 5 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Support for negative amounts (#119) (Tuesday, 5 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Combine API parameters into a single request object + options (#15) (Monday, 4 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add PaymentItem type to deal with transaction types (#111) (Monday, 4 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] How do the payer and payee agree on the payment obligation as part of the flow? (#113) (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the payment request contain line item details? (#49) (Friday, 1 April)

Tommy Thorsen

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Is it neccessary to distinguish the origin of data provided in the payment response, and how would we do it? (#173) (Friday, 29 April)

Wayne Carr

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] How are web-based payment apps supported? (#39) (Sunday, 10 April)

Zach Koch

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Fix #129 (#153) (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Fix #129 (#153) (Saturday, 23 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] provide shipping address in PaymentResponse (#139) (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Reference names should have hyphens (#125) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Reference names should have hyphens (#125) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] [architecture] Reference names should have hyphens (#63) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Merged PaymentRequest params and tweaked to address some issues (#133) (Friday, 15 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Merged PaymentRequest params and tweaked to address some issues (#133) (Friday, 15 April)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should show() be renamed? (#127) (Friday, 8 April)

Zen Smith

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] grammatical updates to the payment method identifier spec (#124) (Sunday, 10 April)

Last message date: Saturday, 30 April 2016 21:07:34 UTC