Re: [w3c/webpayments-payment-apps-api] Payment app identifier to manifest filename mapping (#48)

@jakearchibald,

> A "user agent-based payment app" should be registered via a service worker (unless there's good > reason to do something else), as this is how it's done with every other sw-based API. Is there 
> consensus on this?

I would say yes. We are still working out the details, but this is definitely the direction.

> Therefore, for recommended payment apps that aren't registered as a "user agent-based 
> payment app", I'm not sure it's wise to show anything from the manifest other than its origin.

Ok

> For recommended payment apps that are also a registered "user agent-based payment app", 
> you can show manifest details if the user has already accepted them.

Agreed. I chatted about user consent yesterday with @marcoscaceres ; stay tuned for a proposal.

> If you agree with the above, the only safe way for a user to adopt a payment provider is to 
> accept a permission from the origin.

That's what we discussed yesterday. (That's not explicit in the spec, so this will be a good fix.)

Thanks for the suggestions. I am looking forward to the proposal from @marcoscaceres, which I think will address a number of issues:

 * the ones you raised above
 * how to leverage (and not respecify) Web Manifest
 * how to update payment method data after the initial registration
 * how to address payment apps (by origin); this one will need discussion.

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/webpayments-payment-apps-api/issues/48#issuecomment-273682028