W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments-specs@w3.org > May 2019

Re: [w3c/payment-handler] "Middleman Id/Commission %/Payeeer" provision (#335)

From: richardPAG <notifications@github.com>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 21:20:26 -0700
To: w3c/payment-handler <payment-handler@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <w3c/payment-handler/issues/335/492910770@github.com>
@adrianhopebailie You may wel have just answer my original question! methodData looks to flow from SMC though to the PaymentRequestEvent so could very well be the "best" solution? Just up to Payment Handlers to specify the contents. No the best but it's sure better than nothing!

> Are disbursements explicit or calculated on a ratio?

Explicit.

> How do we standardize on payee identifiers?

You don't.  The same way you currently don't standardize on Merchant identifiers as I have explained in this thread.

Observations: -

1. SMC knows Fred's Payment Provider and Jack's (which maybe different). The value comes from allowing SMC to provide support for a variety of providers. With a standard API. Is your contention that SMC should just really cater for native bespoke Javascript libraries from each payment provider?

***NB*** The options are never shown the the Payer! They are made available to each driver when they sign up. 

2) "This case only really applies when the payment handler invokes the payment which we see as an increasingly rare case. " The Payment Handler invokes the payment? I have no idea what you mean with (2).

-- 
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/335#issuecomment-492910770
Received on Thursday, 16 May 2019 04:20:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 16 May 2019 04:20:50 UTC