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

Ade Bateman

• Re: [browser-payment-api] Spec should use [SecureContext] once that is defined in Web IDL (#22) (Thursday, 24 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Should the payment request contain line item details? (#49) (Thursday, 24 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Should the payment request contain line item details? (#49) (Thursday, 24 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Add issue #43 to payment request spec. (#61) (Thursday, 24 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Add issue #43 to payment request spec. (#61) (Thursday, 24 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Add reference to issue #44. (#78) (Thursday, 24 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Add reference to issue #44. (#78) (Thursday, 24 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #40. (#72) (Thursday, 24 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #40. (#72) (Thursday, 24 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Card Sub-Brands (#95) (Thursday, 24 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Card Sub-Brands (#95) (Thursday, 24 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #53. (#86) (Thursday, 24 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #53. (#86) (Thursday, 24 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Remove note and add description for diagram (#74) (Thursday, 24 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Remove note and add description for diagram (#74) (Thursday, 24 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Make activation language more permissive (#70) (Thursday, 24 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Make activation language more permissive (#70) (Thursday, 24 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Document titles were wrong (#69) (Thursday, 24 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Document titles were wrong (#69) (Thursday, 24 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Wrong document names and British English (#93) (Wednesday, 23 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Wrong document names and British English (#93) (Wednesday, 23 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] User Agent should not be hyphenated (#68) (Wednesday, 23 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] User Agent should not be hyphenated (#68) (Wednesday, 23 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Remove duplicate conformance language (#67) (Wednesday, 23 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Remove duplicate conformance language (#67) (Wednesday, 23 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Added respec defines to improve github links (#57) (Wednesday, 23 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Added respec defines to improve github links (#57) (Wednesday, 23 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Removed references to "browser" (#92) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Add reference to issue #46. (#80) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Add reference to issue #46. (#80) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] How are payment requests and responses passed between the browser and third-party native wallets? (#50) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Add reference to issue #46. (#80) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Should Payment Method Identifiers and Messages be expressed using a Linked Data Vocabulary? (#45) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Add section on Extensibility (#44) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] How do organizations layer additional information in the core payment messages? (#40) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Add UnionPay, Correct typo on Diners (#91) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Add UnionPay, Correct typo on Diners (#91) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Different card schemes have different mandatory field requirements (#9) (Sunday, 13 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Redefinition of BasicCardResponse to address Issue 9 (#25) (Saturday, 12 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Redefinition of BasicCardResponse to address Issue 9 (#25) (Saturday, 12 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Different card schemes have different mandatory field requirements (#9) (Saturday, 12 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Different card schemes have different mandatory field requirements (#9) (Saturday, 12 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Write-up proposal for shipping address fields (#6) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Different card schemes have different mandatory field requirements (#9) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Suggest two alternative payment method identifier proposals (#34) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Suggest two alternative payment method identifier proposals (#34) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Suggest two alternative payment method identifier proposals (#34) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Suggest two alternative payment method identifier proposals (#34) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Suggest two alternative payment method identifier proposals (#34) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Suggest two alternative payment method identifier proposals (#34) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Editorial and some clarifications (#37) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Editorial and some clarifications (#37) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Gh pages (#36) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Gh pages (#36) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Write-up proposal for shipping address fields (#6) (Thursday, 10 March)

Adrian Hope-Bailie

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the payment request contain line item details? (#49) (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency amount (#101) (Thursday, 31 March)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add PaymentItem type to deal with transaction types (#111) (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] complete() should take a string argument not boolean (#17) (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to provide amounts in more than one currency (#3) (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] complete() should take a string argument not boolean (#17) (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should we standardise a callback mechanism for payment apps to communicate to 3rd parties? (#109) (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] complete() should take a string argument not boolean (#17) (Thursday, 31 March)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should we standardise a callback mechanism for payment apps to communicate to 3rd parties? (#109) (Thursday, 31 March)
• 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) (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add option 1b to payment method identifier spec. (#108) (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to provide amounts in more than one currency (#3) (Wednesday, 30 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency amount (#101) (Wednesday, 30 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What happens when currency of offer differs from currency of selected payment instrument? (#29) (Wednesday, 30 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] How are payment apps shared between different browser brands? (#38) (Wednesday, 30 March)
• 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) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency amount (#101) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency amount (#101) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency amount (#101) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Issue marker requesting security considerations section (#98) (Sunday, 27 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #39 (#77) (Sunday, 27 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #50. (#84) (Sunday, 27 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #51. (#85) (Sunday, 27 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Add reference to issue #48. (#82) (Sunday, 27 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Add reference to issue #47. (#81) (Sunday, 27 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Add reference to issue #45. (#79) (Sunday, 27 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Some friendly editorial changes (#64) (Sunday, 27 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] How are web-based payment apps supported? (#39) (Sunday, 27 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] How are web-based payment apps supported? (#39) (Sunday, 27 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #55. (#87) (Sunday, 27 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #38 (#73) (Sunday, 27 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Thursday, 24 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Add reference to issue #49. (#83) (Thursday, 24 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Some friendly editorial changes (#64) (Thursday, 24 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to vary amounts depending on payment method (#4) (Wednesday, 23 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Different card schemes have different mandatory field requirements (#9) (Wednesday, 23 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Specifying Mandatory Data (#97) (Wednesday, 23 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Different card schemes have different mandatory field requirements (#9) (Wednesday, 23 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Different card schemes have different mandatory field requirements (#9) (Wednesday, 23 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Different card schemes have different mandatory field requirements (#9) (Monday, 21 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Write-up proposal for shipping address fields (#6) (Saturday, 19 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #38 (#73) (Friday, 18 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #40. (#72) (Friday, 18 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] How do organizations layer additional information in the core payment messages? (#40) (Friday, 18 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #40. (#72) (Friday, 18 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Make activation language more permissive (#70) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Document titles were wrong (#69) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] User Agent should not be hyphenated (#68) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Some friendly editorial changes (#64) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Some friendly editorial changes (#64) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Add issue #43 to payment request spec. (#61) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Terminology across all Web Payments documents should be aligned (#43) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Added respec defines to improve github links (#57) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Should the payment request support multiple pricing options? (#54) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Should the API support field-level encryption? (#55) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [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, 14 March)
• Re: [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, 14 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Redefinition of BasicCardResponse to address Issue 9 (#25) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Redefinition of BasicCardResponse to address Issue 9 (#25) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Redefinition of BasicCardResponse to address Issue 9 (#25) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Redefinition of BasicCardResponse to address Issue 9 (#25) (Friday, 11 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Editorial and some clarifications (#37) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Write-up proposal for shipping address fields (#6) (Friday, 11 March)

Anders Rundgren

• Re: [browser-payment-api] How are payment requests and responses passed between the browser and third-party native wallets? (#50) (Friday, 25 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] How are payment requests and responses passed between the browser and third-party native wallets? (#50) (Friday, 25 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] How are payment requests and responses passed between the browser and third-party native wallets? (#50) (Friday, 25 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] How are payment requests and responses passed between the browser and third-party native wallets? (#50) (Monday, 21 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] API Data Integrity (#31) (Saturday, 12 March)

Dave Longley

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Issue Prioritisation Explainer (#105) (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Specifying Mandatory Data (#97) (Wednesday, 30 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Different card schemes have different mandatory field requirements (#9) (Thursday, 24 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to vary amounts depending on payment method (#4) (Wednesday, 23 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to vary amounts depending on payment method (#4) (Wednesday, 23 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Different card schemes have different mandatory field requirements (#9) (Wednesday, 23 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Different card schemes have different mandatory field requirements (#9) (Wednesday, 23 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] How do organizations layer additional information in the core payment messages? (#40) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] [api] Section 11 PaymentResponse seems to be missing shippingAddress (#75) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] [api] Section 11 PaymentResponse seems to be missing shippingAddress (#75) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] [api] Section 11 PaymentResponse seems to be missing shippingAddress (#75) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Merge Payment Request Architecture with Capabilities Document (#42) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Merge Payment Request Architecture with Capabilities Document (#42) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Merge Payment Request Architecture with Capabilities Document (#42) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Merge Payment Request Architecture with Capabilities Document (#42) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Merge Payment Request Architecture with Capabilities Document (#42) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Suggest two alternative payment method identifier proposals (#34) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Suggest two alternative payment method identifier proposals (#34) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Suggest two alternative payment method identifier proposals (#34) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Any plan to allow this API to be called by non-merchants? (#35) (Thursday, 10 March)

David Illsley

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to provide amounts in more than one currency (#3) (Wednesday, 30 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Should a website be able to provide a label for the "Buy" or "Checkout" button displayed in the payment app? (#56) (Thursday, 24 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to vary amounts depending on payment method (#4) (Wednesday, 23 March)

dezell

• Re: [browser-payment-api] Different card schemes have different mandatory field requirements (#9) (Sunday, 13 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Different card schemes have different mandatory field requirements (#9) (Sunday, 13 March)

fredMeignien

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Issue Prioritisation Explainer (#105) (Wednesday, 30 March)

Håvard Molland

• Re: [browser-payment-api] Spec should use [SecureContext] once that is defined in Web IDL (#22) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Spec should use [SecureContext] once that is defined in Web IDL (#22) (Thursday, 17 March)

Ian Jacobs

• Test new list (Thursday, 10 March)

ianbjacobs

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Migrate PaymentRequest text from arch to payment request spec. (#110) (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Migrate PaymentRequest text from arch to payment request spec. (#110) (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should we define nesting/grouping semantics for payment method identifier matching? (#30) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should we define nesting/grouping semantics for payment method identifier matching? (#30) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should we define nesting/grouping semantics for payment method identifier matching? (#30) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Payment Instrument clarification (#104) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What component does the payment method intersection? (#103) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Card Sub-Brands (#95) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• 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) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Basic Card Payment Spec will become a Note not a Rec (#100) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] How are payment apps shared between different browser brands? (#38) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• 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) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Terminology across all Web Payments documents should be aligned (#43) (Friday, 18 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Merge Payment Request Architecture with Capabilities Document (#42) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Add reference to issue #46. (#80) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Should Payment Method Identifiers and Messages be expressed using a Linked Data Vocabulary? (#45) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] How do organizations layer additional information in the core payment messages? (#40) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Merge Payment Request Architecture with Capabilities Document (#42) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Merge Payment Request Architecture with Capabilities Document (#42) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Merge Payment Request Architecture with Capabilities Document (#42) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Merge Payment Request Architecture with Capabilities Document (#42) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Tuesday, 15 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Should the API support field-level encryption? (#55) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] How do organizations layer additional information in the core payment messages? (#40) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Merge Payment Request Architecture with Capabilities Document (#42) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Should the payment request support multiple pricing options? (#54) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] How does the API support enrollment (aka subscription, future payment) use cases? (#52) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] How do organizations layer additional information in the core payment messages? (#40) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] How does the API support enrollment (aka subscription, future payment) use cases? (#52) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Terminology across all Web Payments documents should be aligned (#43) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Merge Payment Request Architecture with Capabilities Document (#42) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] How do organizations layer additional information in the core payment messages? (#40) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] How are payment apps shared between different browser brands? (#38) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Write-up initial proposal for payment app registration spec (#12) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Suggest two alternative payment method identifier proposals (#34) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Suggest two alternative payment method identifier proposals (#34) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Suggest two alternative payment method identifier proposals (#34) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Suggest two alternative payment method identifier proposals (#34) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Suggest two alternative payment method identifier proposals (#34) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Suggest two alternative payment method identifier proposals (#34) (Friday, 11 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Gh pages (#36) (Thursday, 10 March)

Jason Normore

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] complete() should take a string argument not boolean (#17) (Wednesday, 30 March)

Jeff Burdges

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] How are payment requests and responses passed between the browser and third-party native wallets? (#50) (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should we standardise a callback mechanism for payment apps to communicate to 3rd parties? (#109) (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] complete() should take a string argument not boolean (#17) (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] complete() should take a string argument not boolean (#17) (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] How are web-based payment apps supported? (#39) (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should we standardise a callback mechanism for payment apps to communicate to 3rd parties? (#109) (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Thursday, 24 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Should the API support field-level encryption? (#55) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Redefinition of BasicCardResponse to address Issue 9 (#25) (Friday, 11 March)

kirkalx

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency amount (#101) (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency amount (#101) (Thursday, 31 March)
• 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) (Thursday, 31 March)
• 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) (Wednesday, 30 March)

Manu Sporny

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Migrate PaymentRequest text from arch to payment request spec. (#110) (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to provide amounts in more than one currency (#3) (Thursday, 31 March)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Migrate PaymentRequest text from arch to payment request spec. (#110) (Thursday, 31 March)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add option 1b to payment method identifier spec. (#108) (Wednesday, 30 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the payment request contain line item details? (#49) (Wednesday, 30 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #38 (#73) (Wednesday, 30 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #38 (#73) (Wednesday, 30 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #55. (#87) (Wednesday, 30 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #50. (#84) (Wednesday, 30 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #51. (#85) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add reference to issue #48. (#82) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #39 (#77) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add reference to issue #47. (#81) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add reference to issue #45. (#79) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to provide amounts in more than one currency (#3) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Some friendly editorial changes (#64) (Friday, 18 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #40. (#72) (Friday, 18 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #38 (#73) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Should Payment Method Identifiers and Messages be expressed using a Linked Data Vocabulary? (#45) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Spec should use [SecureContext] once that is defined in Web IDL (#22) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] How are payment requests and responses passed between the browser and third-party native wallets? (#50) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Add reference to issue #46. (#80) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Should Payment Method Identifiers and Messages be expressed using a Linked Data Vocabulary? (#45) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Add section on Extensibility (#44) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] How do organizations layer additional information in the core payment messages? (#40) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] How do organizations layer additional information in the core payment messages? (#40) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Merge Payment Request Architecture with Capabilities Document (#42) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Merge Payment Request Architecture with Capabilities Document (#42) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Add reference to issue #56. (#89) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #56. (#88) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #56. (#88) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #55. (#87) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #53. (#86) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #51. (#85) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #50. (#84) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Add reference to issue #49. (#83) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Add reference to issue #48. (#82) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Add reference to issue #47. (#81) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Add reference to issue #46. (#80) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Add reference to issue #45. (#79) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Add reference to issue #44. (#78) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #39 (#77) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #38 (#73) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #40. (#72) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Tuesday, 15 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Tuesday, 15 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Tuesday, 15 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Tuesday, 15 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Add issue #43 to payment request spec. (#61) (Monday, 14 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Remove trailing whitespace. (#60) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] [architecture] Use "user agent", not "browser" (#59) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] How do organizations layer additional information in the core payment messages? (#40) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Should the API handle pre-auth, recurring payments, and similar scenarios (#19) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Should the payment request support multiple pricing options? (#54) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Should the payment request support multiple pricing options? (#54) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] How do organizations layer additional information in the core payment messages? (#40) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Terminology across all Web Payments documents should be aligned (#43) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Merge Payment Request Architecture with Capabilities Document (#42) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] [architecture] Use "user agent", not "browser" (#59) (Monday, 14 March)
• [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, 14 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Should the API support field-level encryption? (#55) (Monday, 14 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Should the payment request support multiple pricing options? (#54) (Monday, 14 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Add section on internationalization (#53) (Monday, 14 March)
• [browser-payment-api] How does the API support enrollment (aka subscription, future payment) use cases? (#52) (Monday, 14 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Should the payment API be more conversational vs. rigid? (#51) (Monday, 14 March)
• [browser-payment-api] How are payment requests and responses passed between the browser and third-party native wallets? (#50) (Monday, 14 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Should the payment request contain line item details? (#49) (Monday, 14 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Should list of accepted payment methods be strings or objects? (#48) (Monday, 14 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Should a payment request be just data, or a programmable object? (#47) (Monday, 14 March)
• [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) (Monday, 14 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Should Payment Method Identifiers and Messages be expressed using a Linked Data Vocabulary? (#45) (Monday, 14 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Add section on Extensibility (#44) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Write-up initial proposal for payment app registration spec (#12) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] What is the format for payment method identifiers for distributed extensibility (#11) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] How do we ensure that the payment request from the merchant is not tampered with before it gets to the payment app? (#41) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] How do we ensure that the payment request from the merchant is not tampered with before it gets to the payment app? (#41) (Monday, 14 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Terminology across all Web Payments documents should be aligned (#43) (Monday, 14 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Merge Payment Request Architecture with Capabilities Document (#42) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Spec should use [SecureContext] once that is defined in Web IDL (#22) (Monday, 14 March)
• [browser-payment-api] How do we ensure that the payment request from the merchant is not tampered with before it gets to the payment app? (#41) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] How do organizations layer additional information in the core payment messages? (#40) (Monday, 14 March)
• [browser-payment-api] How do organizations layer additional information in the core payment messages? (#40) (Monday, 14 March)
• [browser-payment-api] How are web-based payment apps supported? (#39) (Monday, 14 March)
• [browser-payment-api] How are payment apps shared between different browser brands? (#38) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Write-up initial proposal for payment app registration spec (#12) (Monday, 14 March)

Matt Saxon

• 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) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Card Sub-Brands (#95) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to provide amounts in more than one currency (#3) (Tuesday, 29 March)

mattsaxon

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] complete() should take a string argument not boolean (#17) (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add PaymentItem type to deal with transaction types (#111) (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] complete() should take a string argument not boolean (#17) (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] complete() should take a string argument not boolean (#17) (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Migrate PaymentRequest text from arch to payment request spec. (#110) (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add PaymentItem type to deal with transaction types (#111) (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should we define nesting/grouping semantics for payment method identifier matching? (#30) (Wednesday, 30 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Specifying Mandatory Data (#97) (Wednesday, 30 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Payment Instrument clarification (#104) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency amount (#101) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Issue Prioritisation Explainer (#105) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Payment Instrument clarification (#104) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] What component does the payment method intersection? (#103) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] How are payment apps shared between different browser brands? (#38) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] How are payment apps shared between different browser brands? (#38) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #38 (#73) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] How are payment apps shared between different browser brands? (#38) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Specifying Mandatory Data (#97) (Wednesday, 23 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Card Sub-Brands (#95) (Wednesday, 23 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to vary amounts depending on payment method (#4) (Wednesday, 23 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to vary amounts depending on payment method (#4) (Wednesday, 23 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Should we define nesting/grouping semantics for payment method identifier matching? (#30) (Monday, 21 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Specifying Mandatory Data (#97) (Monday, 21 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Different card schemes have different mandatory field requirements (#9) (Monday, 21 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to vary amounts depending on payment method (#4) (Sunday, 20 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Gh pages (#95) (Sunday, 20 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Should the API support field-level encryption? (#55) (Sunday, 20 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to provide amounts in more than one currency (#3) (Sunday, 20 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Sunday, 20 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Add UnionPay, Correct typo on Diners (#91) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Gh pages (#90) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Redefinition of BasicCardResponse to address Issue 9 (#25) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Gh pages (#90) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Different card schemes have different mandatory field requirements (#9) (Sunday, 13 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Different card schemes have different mandatory field requirements (#9) (Saturday, 12 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Suggest two alternative payment method identifier proposals (#34) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Suggest two alternative payment method identifier proposals (#34) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Suggest two alternative payment method identifier proposals (#34) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Redefinition of BasicCardResponse to address Issue 9 (#25) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Redefinition of BasicCardResponse to address Issue 9 (#25) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Suggest two alternative payment method identifier proposals (#34) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Redefinition of BasicCardResponse to address Issue 9 (#25) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Suggest two alternative payment method identifier proposals (#34) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Redefinition of BasicCardResponse to address Issue 9 (#25) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Redefinition of BasicCardResponse to address Issue 9 (#25) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Redefinition of BasicCardResponse to address Issue 9 (#25) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Redefinition of BasicCardResponse to address Issue 9 (#25) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Redefinition of BasicCardResponse to address Issue 9 (#25) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Different card schemes have different mandatory field requirements (#9) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] API Data Integrity (#31) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Should the API handle pre-auth, recurring payments, and similar scenarios (#19) (Friday, 11 March)

mwatson2

• Re: [browser-payment-api] Should the API handle pre-auth, recurring payments, and similar scenarios (#19) (Monday, 14 March)

Nick S

• Re: [browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to vary amounts depending on payment method (#4) (Wednesday, 23 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Different card schemes have different mandatory field requirements (#9) (Sunday, 13 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Different card schemes have different mandatory field requirements (#9) (Saturday, 12 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Different card schemes have different mandatory field requirements (#9) (Saturday, 12 March)

Nick Telford-Reed

• [browser-payment-api] Alternative issue marker for issue#38 (#96) (Sunday, 20 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #38 (#73) (Sunday, 20 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #40. (#72) (Sunday, 20 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Should a website be able to provide a label for the "Buy" or "Checkout" button displayed in the payment app? (#56) (Tuesday, 15 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to provide amounts in more than one currency (#3) (Tuesday, 15 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Minor mod to paymentrequest.html (#62) (Tuesday, 15 March)

Rouslan Solomakhin

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Specifying Mandatory Data (#97) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] How are payment requests and responses passed between the browser and third-party native wallets? (#50) (Friday, 25 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] How are payment requests and responses passed between the browser and third-party native wallets? (#50) (Friday, 25 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] How are payment requests and responses passed between the browser and third-party native wallets? (#50) (Friday, 25 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to vary amounts depending on payment method (#4) (Thursday, 24 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to vary amounts depending on payment method (#4) (Thursday, 24 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Should a website be able to provide a label for the "Buy" or "Checkout" button displayed in the payment app? (#56) (Wednesday, 23 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to provide amounts in more than one currency (#3) (Wednesday, 23 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to provide amounts in more than one currency (#3) (Wednesday, 23 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to vary amounts depending on payment method (#4) (Wednesday, 23 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Different card schemes have different mandatory field requirements (#9) (Wednesday, 23 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Card Sub-Brands (#95) (Wednesday, 23 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] How are payment requests and responses passed between the browser and third-party native wallets? (#50) (Wednesday, 23 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to vary amounts depending on payment method (#4) (Wednesday, 23 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Card Sub-Brands (#95) (Wednesday, 23 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] [api] Section 11 PaymentResponse seems to be missing shippingAddress (#75) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Write-up proposal for shipping address fields (#6) (Thursday, 10 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Write-up proposal for shipping address fields (#6) (Thursday, 10 March)

rvm4

• [w3c/browser-payment-api] add rvm4 as editor on the other 3 specs (#107) (Wednesday, 30 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] add rvm4 as editor on the other 3 specs (#107) (Wednesday, 30 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] mark rvm4 as a new editor of the spec (#102) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Rvm4 editor (#99) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Rvm4 editor (#99) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] mark rvm4 as a new editor of the spec (#102) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Rvm4 editor (#99) (Monday, 28 March)

Shane McCarron

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add PaymentItem type to deal with transaction types (#111) (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the payment request contain line item details? (#49) (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Resubmitting because the document moved (#106) (Wednesday, 30 March)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Resubmitting because the document moved (#106) (Wednesday, 30 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency amount (#101) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency amount (#101) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to vary amounts depending on payment method (#4) (Thursday, 24 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Should the payment request contain line item details? (#49) (Thursday, 24 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Different card schemes have different mandatory field requirements (#9) (Thursday, 24 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Some friendly editorial changes (#64) (Thursday, 24 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Some friendly editorial changes (#64) (Friday, 18 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] How do organizations layer additional information in the core payment messages? (#40) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Merge Payment Request Architecture with Capabilities Document (#42) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] [api] Section 11 PaymentResponse seems to be missing shippingAddress (#75) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Add section on Extensibility (#44) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Added respec defines to improve github links (#57) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] [api] Section 11 PaymentResponse seems to be missing shippingAddress (#75) (Thursday, 17 March)
• [browser-payment-api] [basic] Reference trademarks (#94) (Thursday, 17 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Wrong document names and British English (#93) (Thursday, 17 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Fix typo (#76) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• [browser-payment-api] [api] Section 11 PaymentResponse seems to be missing shippingAddress (#75) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Remove note and add description for diagram (#74) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• [browser-payment-api] "Shown" is not inclusive enough (#71) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Make activation language more permissive (#70) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Spec should use [SecureContext] once that is defined in Web IDL (#22) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Document titles were wrong (#69) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• [browser-payment-api] User Agent should not be hyphenated (#68) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Remove duplicate conformance language (#67) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• [browser-payment-api] [api] Change e.g. to e.g., (#66) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Some friendly editorial changes (#64) (Tuesday, 15 March)
• [browser-payment-api] [architecture] Reference names should have hyphens (#63) (Tuesday, 15 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] [architecture] Use "user agent", not "browser" (#59) (Monday, 14 March)
• [browser-payment-api] [architecture] Use "user agent", not "browser" (#59) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [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, 14 March)
• [browser-payment-api] [architecture] SotD should indicate it is intended to be a Note (#58) (Monday, 14 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Added respec defines to improve github links (#57) (Monday, 14 March)

Wendy Seltzer

• Re: [browser-payment-api] Spec should use [SecureContext] once that is defined in Web IDL (#22) (Thursday, 17 March)

Zach Koch

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency amount (#101) (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add PaymentItem type to deal with transaction types (#111) (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] complete() should take a string argument not boolean (#17) (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] complete() should take a string argument not boolean (#17) (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add PaymentItem type to deal with transaction types (#111) (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] complete() should take a string argument not boolean (#17) (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add PaymentItem type to deal with transaction types (#111) (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Specifying Mandatory Data (#97) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should we define nesting/grouping semantics for payment method identifier matching? (#30) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should we define nesting/grouping semantics for payment method identifier matching? (#30) (Tuesday, 29 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Thursday, 24 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Add reference to issue #56. (#89) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #39 (#77) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] "Shown" is not inclusive enough (#71) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Add a reference to issue #38 (#73) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Removed references to "browser" (#92) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] [architecture] Use "user agent", not "browser" (#59) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Remove trailing whitespace. (#60) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Fix typo (#76) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Some friendly editorial changes (#64) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Some friendly editorial changes (#64) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Added respec defines to improve github links (#57) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] [api] Section 11 PaymentResponse seems to be missing shippingAddress (#75) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Gh pages (#90) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Suggest two alternative payment method identifier proposals (#34) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Tuesday, 15 March)
• [browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Tuesday, 15 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Minor mod to paymentrequest.html (#62) (Tuesday, 15 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Different card schemes have different mandatory field requirements (#9) (Sunday, 13 March)
• Re: [browser-payment-api] Suggest two alternative payment method identifier proposals (#34) (Friday, 11 March)

Last message date: Thursday, 31 March 2016 23:55:19 UTC