Re: [w3c/webpayments-payment-apps-api] The relationship between payment apps and service workers (#33)

> I think you are conflating payment app manifests and payment method manifests.

That's intentional. We could have separate `payment-app.json` and `payment-method.json`, but placing the data in a single file will save a round-trip. Is it a bad idea?

If we prefer to re-use [appmanifest](https://www.w3.org/TR/appmanifest), then let's put `externally_supported_apps` in there at the extension point.

> I think we'd also get some value out of using payment app manifests too and should be leveraging the existing work done on appmanifest. This is where we'd define things like the app icons, label and alternative versions in app stores etc. (This is all already defined for app manifest).

One downside of the [related_applications](https://www.w3.org/TR/appmanifest/#related_applications-member) list in appmanifest is lack of authentication information for apps. I would like to add `sha256_cert_fingerprints` for Android apps, but the [`related_applications` algorithm](https://www.w3.org/TR/appmanifest/#dfn-steps-for-processing-the-related_applications-member) does not have an extension point. Is it possible to add an extension point there in the [appmanifest spec](https://www.w3.org/TR/appmanifest)?

-- 
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-payment-apps-api/issues/33#issuecomment-245408889