Re: [w3c/payment-request] Revert "Drop PaymentAddress, shipping + billing address support (#955)" (PR #996)

@rsolomakhin requested changes on this pull request.



> @@ -597,8 +739,8 @@ <h2>
               <li>For each |paymentMethod| of |methodData|:
                 <ol>
                   <li data-tests=
-                  "payment-request-ctor-pmi-handling.https.sub.html">Run the
-                  steps to <a>validate a payment method identifier</a> with
+                  "payment-request-ctor-pmi-handling.https.html">Run the steps

Is the change in the test file name intentional?

> +          boolean requestPayerName = false;
+          boolean requestBillingAddress = false;
+          boolean requestPayerEmail = false;
+          boolean requestPayerPhone = false;
+          boolean requestShipping = false;
+          PaymentShippingType shippingType = "shipping";
+        };
+      </pre>
+      <p class="note">
+        The {{PaymentOptions}} dictionary is passed to the {{PaymentRequest}}
+        constructor and provides information about the options desired for the
+        payment request.
+      </p>
+      <dl>
+        <dt>
+          <dfn>requestBillingAddress</dfn> member

By the way, this was never implemented in Chrome and I am not aware of any plans to add it (for now). Is it worth revisiting whether this should be in the spec?

> +    <section>
+      <h2>
+        Physical addresses
+      </h2>
+      <aside class="note">
+        The Web Payments Working Group removed support for shipping and billing
+        addresses from the original version of Payment Request API due to
+        <a href="https://github.com/w3c/payment-request/issues/842">privacy
+        concerns</a>. In order to provide documentation for implementations
+        that continue to support this capability, the Working Group is now
+        restoring the feature with an expectation of addressing privacy issues.
+        In doing so the Working Group may also make changes to Payment Request
+        API based on the evolution of other APIs (e.g., the
+        [[[contact-picker]]])
+      </aside>
+      <p>

If the spec will be using `ContactAddress`, does it make sense to duplicate that spec's information in here? I am concerned that the two specs will drift out of sync over time.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/payment-request/pull/996#pullrequestreview-1878612631
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3c/payment-request/pull/996/review/1878612631@github.com>