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

> To be clear for @jakearchibald and @marcoscaceres there are two manifests being proposed (although @rsolomakhin would like these combined in cases where the payment method owner only allows their own payment app to be used).

If you can avoid having an external JSON resource, please do so. In https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/issues/247, it seems you are already avoiding using JSON - you have just a regular JS object (...and yes, you should not be able to detect the payment method:)) 

> so while we'd like to use manifests we may have to provide imperative versions of everything in a manifest through the service worker registration hook instead.

We have a similar issue filed here to do that:
https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues/472

Web Manifest predates the extensible web and service workers, which is why we didn't have an API in the first place. If we were to do web manifest today, we would not do it as JSON - but as an API in Service Workers (hence https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues/472).
 
> Question to the two of you is, can we come to an agreement about using app manifest with service workers in a way that makes sense for apps where the service worker really is the app or is app manifest just a way to put icons and context on html apps?

What @jakearchibald said and asked. 


-- 
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-246609553