- From: Jinho Bang <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 07:30:32 +0000 (UTC)
- To: w3c/payment-handler <payment-handler@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Received on Monday, 4 December 2017 07:30:57 UTC
> This is correct, and also fine. The point of clearing site data is to break these relationships. If the user wishes to establish the relationship with the site, then they should revisit it... and their payments instruments can be restored + the site can again ask for permission to manage them. Thank you for your reply! I thought you would like to keep the instrument data even if the user cleared the site data. Because it might be bad UX to revisit the site to re-install the payment handler to someone who clears the site data periodically. However, in terms of privacy, I agree that we should also remove the instruments data when users clears site data. So, what is the benefit of changing the API shape? I think that even if the `PaymentInstruments` are independent on the SW life cycle, it will be dependent on SW again in order to connect them. (I'm OK with setting payment instruments outside of the ServiceWorker. I'm just curious.) Also, if there are multiple SW in the site, how it works? - I guess the only one SW should be connected with instruments data. - Otherwise, all registered SW should listen to `PaymentRequest` event. -- 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/payment-handler/issues/236#issuecomment-348881244
Received on Monday, 4 December 2017 07:30:57 UTC