Re: [w3c/webpayments-method-identifiers] Resolve whether browsers need to police payment app claims of supported methods (#11)

_[Yes, I edited my previous comment to fix "app" -> "method"]_

@zkoch 
> Not in the same way (assuming you mean payment method instead of app). Because any payment method that is standardized means that it's open. Which means there is at least a path to success.

No, now you're describing a different situation. The thing that you're claiming is unacceptably bad is malware putting itself in the list. And, again, if it's unacceptable in one case, it's unacceptable in the others. The fact that we can't police one and can (with additional mechanism) police the other doesn't make the problem more severe for proprietary methods or less so for open ones.

I agree with @dlongley's comments here; what you're proposing will draw a bright line between proprietary and open methods.

If the problem is as severe as you assert (and I don't accept that premise, but I assume you do), then the result will be that requesting a standardized payment method will become a liability that merchants will avoid. If what you assert is true, and we accept your proposed remedy, then standardized payment methods will be dead on arrival.

-- 
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/webpayments-method-identifiers/issues/11#issuecomment-240260413