Re: [w3c/payment-handler] Edits regarding ordering based on 7 Dec WG teleconf (#242)

Hi @msporny,

You raise a good point about display order of instruments in the case when user agents display those instruments. (We know that in some cases they will not, but in some cases they might.)
I have added this as a new issue:
 https://github.com/w3c/payment-handler/issues/243

I prefer to close this pull request with the consensus language and address language for issue 243 separately (though we might end up editing the text again).

I still do not agree that we should mention merchant preferences since we explicitly do not provide for expression of merchant preferences in any specification. If it becomes possible to register
merchant preferences via Payment Request API, the we can revisit that question.

People who write software have lots of reasons for legal support, including
determining whether they can implement the entire specification. I strongly prefer not
mentioning "regulatory implications and need corporate counsel" in the specification.

Summary:

 * We have consensus for two sentences; let's fold those into the spec.
 * Let's address issue 243 separately. There may or may not be a need to change
   the consensus language we have so far; we can decide as we work through issue 243.
 * Let's not address merchant preferences until they can be expressed normatively
   through Payment Request API.
 * Let's not make broad statements that implementers need legal support.

Ian


-- 
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/pull/242#issuecomment-351603004