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

adamroach

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should we define nesting/grouping semantics for payment method identifier matching? (#30) (Thursday, 26 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to vary amounts depending on payment method (#4) (Thursday, 26 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Thursday, 26 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: Payment Method Identifiers taking advantage of URL characteristics (#205) (Thursday, 26 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: Payment Method Identifiers taking advantage of URL characteristics (#205) (Thursday, 26 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the amount be in decimal or cents? (#204) (Sunday, 22 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Why another API? (#203) (Sunday, 22 May)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Removing erroneous <svg> clip boundaries (#201) (Friday, 20 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Thursday, 19 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Thursday, 19 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to vary amounts depending on payment method (#4) (Thursday, 19 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should we define nesting/grouping semantics for payment method identifier matching? (#30) (Thursday, 19 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Wednesday, 18 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Wednesday, 18 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] ShippingAddress versus Address (#189) (Tuesday, 17 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Spec prohibits currency validation but doesn't define what it is (#175) (Tuesday, 17 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] ShippingAddress versus Address (#189) (Tuesday, 17 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Storing card information (#199) (Tuesday, 17 May)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Storing card information (#199) (Monday, 16 May)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Address alignment (#198) (Monday, 16 May)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Care of (#197) (Monday, 16 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] adding careOf field (#196) (Monday, 16 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] ShippingAddress versus Address (#189) (Monday, 16 May)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] adding careOf field (#196) (Monday, 16 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update "user accepts the payment request algorithm" to include interaction with payment app (#192) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update promise rejection (#187) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Time validity of updateWith() (#188) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Reject acceptPromise on abort() (#182) (Thursday, 12 May)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] ShippingAddress versus Address (#189) (Wednesday, 11 May)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Time validity of updateWith() (#188) (Tuesday, 10 May)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update promise rejection (#187) (Tuesday, 10 May)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] shippingAddress and "c/o" field (#186) (Tuesday, 10 May)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add support for ShippingOption.selected. (#179) (Wednesday, 4 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Consider revising the design of complete() (#122) (Wednesday, 4 May)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Clarified value to use to resove [[acceptPromise]] (#181) (Wednesday, 4 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add support for ShippingOption.selected. (#179) (Wednesday, 4 May)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Fix two minor typos (#180) (Wednesday, 4 May)

Ade Bateman

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Fix bug in updateWith algorithm that resets shippingOption (#206) (Thursday, 26 May)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Fix bug in updateWith algorithm that resets shippingOption (#206) (Thursday, 26 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Removing erroneous <svg> clip boundaries (#201) (Thursday, 26 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Removing erroneous <svg> clip boundaries (#201) (Thursday, 26 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add missing curly bracket (#202) (Thursday, 26 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Use navigator.payments singleton, factory method, or PaymentRequest constructor (#16) (Thursday, 19 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Care of (#197) (Thursday, 19 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] ShippingAddress versus Address (#189) (Thursday, 19 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] shippingAddress and "c/o" field (#186) (Thursday, 19 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Care of (#197) (Thursday, 19 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Address alignment (#198) (Thursday, 19 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Address alignment (#198) (Thursday, 19 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add support for ShippingOption.selected. (#179) (Thursday, 19 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add support for ShippingOption.selected. (#179) (Thursday, 19 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Remove delegated state and make abort() return a promise (#190) (Thursday, 19 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Remove delegated state and make abort() return a promise (#190) (Thursday, 19 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Rename the address type since it will likely be used for other purposes. (#193) (Tuesday, 17 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Rename the address type since it will likely be used for other purposes. (#193) (Tuesday, 17 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Use navigator.payments singleton, factory method, or PaymentRequest constructor (#16) (Monday, 16 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Explain how to treat unrecognised complete values (#191) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Consider revising the design of complete() (#122) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Explain how to treat unrecognised complete values (#191) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update to method identifiers spec to use absolute URLs (#183) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update to method identifiers spec to use absolute URLs (#183) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What is the format for payment method identifiers for distributed extensibility (#11) (Thursday, 12 May)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Rename the address type since it will likely be used for other purposes. (#193) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update "user accepts the payment request algorithm" to include interaction with payment app (#192) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Remove delegated state and make abort() return a promise (#190) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Reject acceptPromise on abort() (#182) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Reject acceptPromise on abort() (#182) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Time validity of updateWith() (#188) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update promise rejection (#187) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update "user accepts the payment request algorithm" to include interaction with payment app (#192) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Remove delegated state and make abort() return a promise (#190) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update promise rejection (#187) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] ShippingAddress versus Address (#189) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Time validity of updateWith() (#188) (Wednesday, 11 May)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Explain how to treat unrecognised complete values (#191) (Wednesday, 11 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Wednesday, 11 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Change the way we request user data (#65) (Wednesday, 11 May)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Remove delegated state and make abort() return a promise (#190) (Wednesday, 11 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Adding support for phone and email (#174) (Wednesday, 11 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Adding support for phone and email (#174) (Wednesday, 11 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the merchant be able to request your email and recipient phone number (#1) (Wednesday, 11 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Use navigator.payments singleton, factory method, or PaymentRequest constructor (#16) (Thursday, 5 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Use navigator.payments singleton, factory method, or PaymentRequest constructor (#16) (Thursday, 5 May)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update to method identifiers spec to use absolute URLs (#183) (Thursday, 5 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Use navigator.payments singleton, factory method, or PaymentRequest constructor (#16) (Thursday, 5 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Use navigator.payments singleton, factory method, or PaymentRequest constructor (#16) (Thursday, 5 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Use navigator.payments singleton, factory method, or PaymentRequest constructor (#16) (Thursday, 5 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] BasicCardResponse: cardholderName should be optional. (#134) (Thursday, 5 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] BasicCardResponse: cardholderName should be optional. (#134) (Thursday, 5 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Updated to use [SecureContext] extended attribute. (#172) (Thursday, 5 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Updated to use [SecureContext] extended attribute. (#172) (Thursday, 5 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Spec should use [SecureContext] once that is defined in Web IDL (#22) (Thursday, 5 May)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Reject acceptPromise on abort() (#182) (Thursday, 5 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Clarified value to use to resove [[acceptPromise]] (#181) (Wednesday, 4 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add support for ShippingOption.selected. (#179) (Wednesday, 4 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Fix two minor typos (#180) (Wednesday, 4 May)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add support for ShippingOption.selected. (#179) (Wednesday, 4 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Spec prohibits currency validation but doesn't define what it is (#175) (Tuesday, 3 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Spec prohibits currency validation but doesn't define what it is (#175) (Tuesday, 3 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] API flow (#177) (Tuesday, 3 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Required fields (#176) (Tuesday, 3 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Remove issue #119 note and assert that total should be non-negative (#168) (Tuesday, 3 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Remove issue #119 note and assert that total should be non-negative (#168) (Tuesday, 3 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Spec prohibits currency validation but doesn't define what it is (#175) (Tuesday, 3 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Adding support for phone and email (#174) (Monday, 2 May)

Adrian Hope-Bailie

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to vary amounts depending on payment method (#4) (Tuesday, 31 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should a payment method identifier (URL) resolve to a machine readable resource that describes it? (#46) (Tuesday, 31 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should a payment method identifier (URL) resolve to a machine readable resource that describes it? (#46) (Tuesday, 31 May)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Move PMI and Card specs out of repo (#207) (Tuesday, 31 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: Payment Method Identifiers taking advantage of URL characteristics (#205) (Tuesday, 31 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: Payment Method Identifiers taking advantage of URL characteristics (#205) (Tuesday, 31 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should well-known identifiers be used for ubiquitous payment methods (#10) (Tuesday, 31 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should well-known identifiers be used for ubiquitous payment methods (#10) (Tuesday, 31 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should we define nesting/grouping semantics for payment method identifier matching? (#30) (Tuesday, 31 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should we define nesting/grouping semantics for payment method identifier matching? (#30) (Tuesday, 31 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] General Comment on Registry Design (#148) (Tuesday, 31 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] General Comment on Registry Design (#148) (Tuesday, 31 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Registry Access/Handling Registry Change (#151) (Tuesday, 31 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Registry Access/Handling Registry Change (#151) (Tuesday, 31 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Terminology across all Web Payments documents should be aligned (#43) (Tuesday, 31 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Terminology across all Web Payments documents should be aligned (#43) (Tuesday, 31 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: A new document structure for this API (#138) (Tuesday, 31 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: A new document structure for this API (#138) (Tuesday, 31 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Storing card information (#199) (Tuesday, 31 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Storing card information (#199) (Tuesday, 31 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should payment method specifications contain WebIDL? (#132) (Tuesday, 31 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should payment method specifications contain WebIDL? (#132) (Tuesday, 31 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Specifying Mandatory Data (#97) (Tuesday, 31 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] [basic] Reference trademarks (#94) (Tuesday, 31 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] [basic] Reference trademarks (#94) (Tuesday, 31 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Specification to include Flow Diagram (#32) (Tuesday, 31 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Specification to include Flow Diagram (#32) (Tuesday, 31 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Saturday, 28 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Friday, 27 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Dynamic Currency Conversion (DCC) Support (#178) (Friday, 27 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Friday, 27 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to vary amounts depending on payment method (#4) (Friday, 27 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Thursday, 26 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Thursday, 26 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should we define nesting/grouping semantics for payment method identifier matching? (#30) (Thursday, 26 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to vary amounts depending on payment method (#4) (Thursday, 26 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Dynamic Currency Conversion (DCC) Support (#178) (Thursday, 26 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should we define nesting/grouping semantics for payment method identifier matching? (#30) (Thursday, 26 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should well-known identifiers be used for ubiquitous payment methods (#10) (Tuesday, 24 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the API handle pre-auth, recurring payments, and similar scenarios (#19) (Tuesday, 24 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the API handle pre-auth, recurring payments, and similar scenarios (#19) (Tuesday, 24 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Tuesday, 24 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update promise rejection (#187) (Tuesday, 24 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: Payment Method Identifiers taking advantage of URL characteristics (#205) (Tuesday, 24 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should PaymentItems have a type? (#163) (Tuesday, 24 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should API support billing address capture (for tax computation)? (#27) (Tuesday, 24 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Concern on Payment Method Identifier requirement (#200) (Tuesday, 24 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Concern on Payment Method Identifier requirement (#200) (Tuesday, 24 May)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: Payment Method Identifiers taking advantage of URL characteristics (#205) (Tuesday, 24 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the amount be in decimal or cents? (#204) (Tuesday, 24 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the amount be in decimal or cents? (#204) (Tuesday, 24 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Why another API? (#203) (Tuesday, 24 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Why another API? (#203) (Monday, 23 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the browser API support the concept of "messages"? (#154) (Thursday, 19 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the browser API support the concept of "messages"? (#154) (Thursday, 19 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Concern on Payment Method Identifier requirement (#200) (Thursday, 19 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Storing card information (#199) (Thursday, 19 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Terms and conditions next to "Pay" button (#195) (Thursday, 19 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Use navigator.payments singleton, factory method, or PaymentRequest constructor (#16) (Thursday, 19 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Remove delegated state and make abort() return a promise (#190) (Wednesday, 18 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Wednesday, 18 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should well-known identifiers be used for ubiquitous payment methods (#10) (Wednesday, 18 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the Payment Request API only be available in a top-level browsing context? (#2) (Wednesday, 18 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Wednesday, 18 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Wednesday, 18 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should PaymentItems have a type? (#163) (Wednesday, 18 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the payment mediator pass all payment method data to the payment app or just relevant data? (#157) (Tuesday, 17 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] API flow (#177) (Tuesday, 17 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add support for ShippingOption.selected. (#179) (Tuesday, 17 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update "user accepts the payment request algorithm" to include interaction with payment app (#192) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Remove delegated state and make abort() return a promise (#190) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update "user accepts the payment request algorithm" to include interaction with payment app (#192) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Remove delegated state and make abort() return a promise (#190) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update promise rejection (#187) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update promise rejection (#187) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Time validity of updateWith() (#188) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Remove delegated state and make abort() return a promise (#190) (Thursday, 12 May)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update "user accepts the payment request algorithm" to include interaction with payment app (#192) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Reject acceptPromise on abort() (#182) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add support for ShippingOption.selected. (#179) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the payment mediator pass all payment method data to the payment app or just relevant data? (#157) (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] setup CI for automatic publications with echidna (#184) (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] API flow (#177) (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] API flow (#177) (Monday, 9 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] API flow (#177) (Monday, 9 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Use navigator.payments singleton, factory method, or PaymentRequest constructor (#16) (Thursday, 5 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Updated to use [SecureContext] extended attribute. (#172) (Wednesday, 4 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] API flow (#177) (Wednesday, 4 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Support for negative amounts (#119) (Wednesday, 4 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Support for negative amounts (#119) (Wednesday, 4 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Clarified value to use to resove [[acceptPromise]] (#181) (Wednesday, 4 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Updated to use [SecureContext] extended attribute. (#172) (Wednesday, 4 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Fix two minor typos (#180) (Wednesday, 4 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Spec prohibits currency validation but doesn't define what it is (#175) (Tuesday, 3 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to provide amounts in more than one currency (#3) (Tuesday, 3 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should PaymentItems have a type? (#163) (Tuesday, 3 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Required fields (#176) (Tuesday, 3 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Fix #129 (#153) (Tuesday, 3 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Spec prohibits currency validation but doesn't define what it is (#175) (Tuesday, 3 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should PaymentItems have a type? (#163) (Tuesday, 3 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Required fields (#176) (Tuesday, 3 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] API flow (#177) (Tuesday, 3 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Updated to use [SecureContext] extended attribute. (#172) (Monday, 2 May)

charlieanna2013

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Updated examples to reflect changes in recent PRs (acf1150) (Tuesday, 3 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Fix old reference to items and use total/displayItems (41f8151) (Tuesday, 3 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update security and privacy considerations sections (f70fdcd) (Tuesday, 3 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update security and privacy considerations sections (f70fdcd) (Tuesday, 3 May)

Dave Longley

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Thursday, 26 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Thursday, 26 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Dynamic Currency Conversion (DCC) Support (#178) (Thursday, 26 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Dynamic Currency Conversion (DCC) Support (#178) (Thursday, 26 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should we define nesting/grouping semantics for payment method identifier matching? (#30) (Thursday, 26 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the amount be in decimal or cents? (#204) (Sunday, 22 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Why another API? (#203) (Sunday, 22 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Thursday, 19 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Thursday, 19 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Care of (#197) (Thursday, 19 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Wednesday, 18 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What is the format for payment method identifiers for distributed extensibility (#11) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should a payment method identifier (URL) resolve to a machine readable resource that describes it? (#46) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should API support billing address capture (for tax computation)? (#27) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should API support billing address capture (for tax computation)? (#27) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update "user accepts the payment request algorithm" to include interaction with payment app (#192) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update to method identifiers spec to use absolute URLs (#183) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update to method identifiers spec to use absolute URLs (#183) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Use navigator.payments singleton, factory method, or PaymentRequest constructor (#16) (Thursday, 5 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Use navigator.payments singleton, factory method, or PaymentRequest constructor (#16) (Thursday, 5 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Use navigator.payments singleton, factory method, or PaymentRequest constructor (#16) (Thursday, 5 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Use navigator.payments singleton, factory method, or PaymentRequest constructor (#16) (Thursday, 5 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Consider revising the design of complete() (#122) (Wednesday, 4 May)

David I. Lehn

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Care of (#197) (Thursday, 19 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Updated to use [SecureContext] extended attribute. (#172) (Wednesday, 4 May)

Denis Ah-Kang

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] setup CI for automatic publications with echidna (#184) (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] setup CI for automatic publications with echidna (#184) (Tuesday, 10 May)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] setup CI for automatic publications with echidna (#184) (Tuesday, 10 May)

derekjohnson

• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add missing curly bracket (#202) (Friday, 20 May)

Erik Wilde

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should well-known identifiers be used for ubiquitous payment methods (#10) (Thursday, 26 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should well-known identifiers be used for ubiquitous payment methods (#10) (Wednesday, 25 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should well-known identifiers be used for ubiquitous payment methods (#10) (Wednesday, 18 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should well-known identifiers be used for ubiquitous payment methods (#10) (Wednesday, 18 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Registry Access/Handling Registry Change (#151) (Tuesday, 17 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Tuesday, 17 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Registry Access/Handling Registry Change (#151) (Tuesday, 17 May)

fredMeignien

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Dynamic Currency Conversion (DCC) Support (#178) (Friday, 27 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Dynamic Currency Conversion (DCC) Support (#178) (Thursday, 26 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] API flow (#177) (Monday, 23 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] API flow (#177) (Sunday, 22 May)

Guille Paz

• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the amount be in decimal or cents? (#204) (Sunday, 22 May)

hober

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Fix #129 (#153) (Monday, 2 May)

ianbjacobs

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Friday, 27 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Friday, 27 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Thursday, 26 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Thursday, 26 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: Payment Method Identifiers taking advantage of URL characteristics (#205) (Thursday, 26 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Thursday, 26 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: Payment Method Identifiers taking advantage of URL characteristics (#205) (Thursday, 26 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should we define nesting/grouping semantics for payment method identifier matching? (#30) (Thursday, 26 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Why another API? (#203) (Saturday, 21 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Why another API? (#203) (Saturday, 21 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Thursday, 19 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Concern on Payment Method Identifier requirement (#200) (Thursday, 19 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Thursday, 19 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Thursday, 19 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should Payment Method Identifiers and Messages be expressed using a Linked Data Vocabulary? (#45) (Wednesday, 18 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What component does the payment method intersection? (#103) (Wednesday, 18 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the browser API support the concept of "messages"? (#154) (Wednesday, 18 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Wednesday, 18 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Tuesday, 17 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Registry Access/Handling Registry Change (#151) (Tuesday, 17 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Tuesday, 17 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150) (Tuesday, 17 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Registry Access/Handling Registry Change (#151) (Tuesday, 17 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Spec prohibits currency validation but doesn't define what it is (#175) (Tuesday, 17 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Concern on Payment Method Identifier requirement (#200) (Tuesday, 17 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Visibility of Payment Options (#194) (Tuesday, 17 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What is the format for payment method identifiers for distributed extensibility (#11) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What is the format for payment method identifiers for distributed extensibility (#11) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update "user accepts the payment request algorithm" to include interaction with payment app (#192) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should API support billing address capture (for tax computation)? (#27) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update to method identifiers spec to use absolute URLs (#183) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] shippingAddress and "c/o" field (#186) (Wednesday, 11 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Wednesday, 11 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What semantics is needed for payment method specific data? (#143) (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What semantics is needed for payment method specific data? (#143) (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] setup CI for automatic publications with echidna (#184) (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] API flow (#177) (Monday, 9 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Dynamic Currency Conversion (DCC) Support (#178) (Wednesday, 4 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Spec prohibits currency validation but doesn't define what it is (#175) (Tuesday, 3 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Spec prohibits currency validation but doesn't define what it is (#175) (Tuesday, 3 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] API flow (#177) (Tuesday, 3 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should PaymentItems have a type? (#163) (Tuesday, 3 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Adding support for phone and email (#174) (Monday, 2 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What semantics is needed for payment method specific data? (#143) (Monday, 2 May)

Jason Normore

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to vary amounts depending on payment method (#4) (Tuesday, 31 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Address alignment (#198) (Thursday, 19 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to vary amounts depending on payment method (#4) (Thursday, 19 May)

Jeff Burdges

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the browser pass user data it has collected (email etc) to the payment app? (#194) (Wednesday, 25 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Update "user accepts the payment request algorithm" to include interaction with payment app (#192) (Tuesday, 24 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Why another API? (#203) (Sunday, 22 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Why another API? (#203) (Saturday, 21 May)

kirkalx

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Spec prohibits currency validation but doesn't define what it is (#175) (Wednesday, 4 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Spec prohibits currency validation but doesn't define what it is (#175) (Sunday, 1 May)

Manu Sporny

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to vary amounts depending on payment method (#4) (Thursday, 26 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Thursday, 26 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: Payment Method Identifiers taking advantage of URL characteristics (#205) (Thursday, 26 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: Payment Method Identifiers taking advantage of URL characteristics (#205) (Thursday, 26 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should we define nesting/grouping semantics for payment method identifier matching? (#30) (Thursday, 26 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should well-known identifiers be used for ubiquitous payment methods (#10) (Thursday, 26 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Use navigator.payments singleton, factory method, or PaymentRequest constructor (#16) (Thursday, 5 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add support for ShippingOption.selected. (#179) (Wednesday, 4 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add support for ShippingOption.selected. (#179) (Wednesday, 4 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add support for ShippingOption.selected. (#179) (Wednesday, 4 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add support for ShippingOption.selected. (#179) (Wednesday, 4 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Updated to use [SecureContext] extended attribute. (#172) (Wednesday, 4 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What is the format for payment method identifiers for distributed extensibility (#11) (Sunday, 1 May)

maoyanhua

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should we define nesting/grouping semantics for payment method identifier matching? (#30) (Thursday, 19 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Concern on Payment Method Identifier requirement (#200) (Thursday, 19 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should we define nesting/grouping semantics for payment method identifier matching? (#30) (Thursday, 19 May)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Concern on Payment Method Identifier requirement (#200) (Tuesday, 17 May)

mattsaxon

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Storing card information (#199) (Tuesday, 17 May)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Visibility of Payment Options (#194) (Friday, 13 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Adding support for phone and email (#174) (Wednesday, 11 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] API flow (#177) (Friday, 6 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Fix #129 (#153) (Wednesday, 4 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] API flow (#177) (Wednesday, 4 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] API flow (#177) (Tuesday, 3 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Required fields (#176) (Tuesday, 3 May)

Michael[tm] Smith

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: Payment Method Identifiers taking advantage of URL characteristics (#205) (Tuesday, 31 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: Payment Method Identifiers taking advantage of URL characteristics (#205) (Tuesday, 24 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: Payment Method Identifiers taking advantage of URL characteristics (#205) (Tuesday, 24 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should well-known identifiers be used for ubiquitous payment methods (#10) (Friday, 20 May)

Nick S

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Fix #129 (#153) (Sunday, 1 May)

Nick Shearer

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Terms and conditions next to "Pay" button (#195) (Friday, 20 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Terms and conditions next to "Pay" button (#195) (Tuesday, 17 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Terms and conditions next to "Pay" button (#195) (Monday, 16 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Storing card information (#199) (Monday, 16 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should PaymentItems have a type? (#163) (Sunday, 1 May)

Richard Love

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Dynamic Currency Conversion (DCC) Support (#178) (Friday, 27 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to provide amounts in more than one currency (#3) (Wednesday, 4 May)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Dynamic Currency Conversion (DCC) Support (#178) (Wednesday, 4 May)

rlovetx

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

Rouslan Solomakhin

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Dynamic Currency Conversion (DCC) Support (#178) (Thursday, 26 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Thursday, 26 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: Payment Method Identifiers taking advantage of URL characteristics (#205) (Thursday, 26 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Dynamic Currency Conversion (DCC) Support (#178) (Thursday, 26 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to vary amounts depending on payment method (#4) (Thursday, 26 May)
• 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) (Wednesday, 25 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What happens when currency of offer differs from currency of selected payment instrument? (#29) (Wednesday, 25 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should the amount be in decimal or cents? (#204) (Sunday, 22 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Specification of required fields (#114) (Saturday, 21 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should well-known identifiers be used for ubiquitous payment methods (#10) (Wednesday, 18 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Spec prohibits currency validation but doesn't define what it is (#175) (Tuesday, 17 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Storing card information (#199) (Tuesday, 17 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] ShippingAddress versus Address (#189) (Tuesday, 17 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] ShippingAddress versus Address (#189) (Tuesday, 17 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Visibility of Payment Options (#194) (Tuesday, 17 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Storing card information (#199) (Tuesday, 17 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Terms and conditions next to "Pay" button (#195) (Tuesday, 17 May)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Terms and conditions next to "Pay" button (#195) (Monday, 16 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] ShippingAddress versus Address (#189) (Wednesday, 11 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Use navigator.payments singleton, factory method, or PaymentRequest constructor (#16) (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Use navigator.payments singleton, factory method, or PaymentRequest constructor (#16) (Tuesday, 10 May)

rvm4

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Address alignment (#198) (Tuesday, 17 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should PaymentItems have a type? (#163) (Tuesday, 17 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Add support for ShippingOption.selected. (#179) (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Adding support for phone and email (#174) (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Required fields (#176) (Tuesday, 3 May)

Shane McCarron

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] ShippingAddress versus Address (#189) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Spec prohibits currency validation but doesn't define what it is (#175) (Tuesday, 3 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Spec prohibits currency validation but doesn't define what it is (#175) (Tuesday, 3 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should PaymentItems have a type? (#163) (Tuesday, 3 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Required fields (#176) (Tuesday, 3 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should PaymentItems have a type? (#163) (Sunday, 1 May)

Thomas Jensen

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Why another API? (#203) (Sunday, 22 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Why another API? (#203) (Sunday, 22 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Why another API? (#203) (Saturday, 21 May)
• [w3c/browser-payment-api] Why another API? (#203) (Saturday, 21 May)

Tommy Thorsen

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Monday, 30 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185) (Friday, 27 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should it be possible to vary amounts depending on payment method (#4) (Friday, 27 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] ShippingAddress versus Address (#189) (Thursday, 12 May)

Zach Koch

• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Reject acceptPromise on abort() (#182) (Thursday, 5 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Adding support for phone and email (#174) (Wednesday, 4 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Updated to use [SecureContext] extended attribute. (#172) (Monday, 2 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Updated to use [SecureContext] extended attribute. (#172) (Monday, 2 May)
• Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Required fields (#176) (Monday, 2 May)

Last message date: Tuesday, 31 May 2016 17:50:11 UTC