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

Hi @msporny,

Regarding shrinking the text, I would say in general that's a good goal. The question is: what are we removing?

Here is what we are keeping:
 * User prefs come first
 * Allow manual configuration
 * Two examples of manual configuration.
 * Details left to implementers

Here is what we are removing (starting from section 4 and working downward)
 * Part of an intro paragraph (not substantive)
 * Respect payee order; removed upon @kmealey request
 * Issue marker (not a part of the spec)
 * One payment handling order example (origin matched? show at the top) (not substantive)
 * Issue marker (not a part of the spec)
 * Statement about icon and label (covered materially in 3.3.7)
 * User experience hint to browsers (not substantive since just an example; furthermore, this
   text is left over from the days when we were trying to communicate what payment apps
   were about).
 * Issue marker (not a part of the spec)
 * Selection of instruments. We've had extensive discussions with Google and Mozilla about this
   and we know their positions. This text, too, is a holdover from the days when we were 
   explaining the big picture.

This is the sort of analysis that led the editors to feel comfortable about removing the text.

For this reason, I am comfortable with the text that we've come up with and about which there is consensus among @kmealey, @marcoscaceres, and myself. 

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-351708682