- From: Manu Sporny <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 05:35:58 +0000 (UTC)
- To: w3c/payment-handler <payment-handler@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Received on Thursday, 14 December 2017 05:36:29 UTC
> 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. "If it becomes possible" might be at any point with any one of the Payment Method specs or right after we get to REC with PR API. Feels easier to future proof... you could add (if applicable) if it makes you feel more comfortable with the language. It's non-normative, what does it hurt to include it? > 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. Implementing parts of the PR/PH API necessarily require a deeper need for counsel than implementing other parts of the Web Platform such as Canvas, Battery Status, or Page Visibility APIs. -- 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-351613744
Received on Thursday, 14 December 2017 05:36:29 UTC