W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments@w3.org > October 2013

Re: Credit-card payments on the Web - Stuck in its 1998 form

From: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 08:24:07 +0200
Message-ID: <5254F687.9010404@gmail.com>
To: Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
CC: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Manu Spornu wrote:

> On 10/07/2013 01:59 PM, Alex Sexton wrote:
> > I don't think we can consider the time since the keygen tag as the
> > time it takes to get features on the web. We've had a *huge* uptick
> > in standardization, and an even bigger uptick of evergreen (or quick 
> > release) browsers to get these APIs in front of people within months
> > of inception. This is vastly different than the way things used to
> > work. It hasn't been 10+ constant years of effort. We've only
> > recently set out to solve many of these problems.
> > 
> > All that to say is that with the right buy-in, the right fallbacks,
> > and the right standards, we don't have to wait 10+ years to make a 
> > significant change. HTML5 and CSS3 aren't but a few years old
> > themselves and have seen massive adoption.
>
> I just wanted to underscore what Alex is saying here. This is absolutely
> correct, things are getting much, much better and there are strategies
> that we can employ that don't require buy-in from major browser
> manufacturers, large banks, or existing payment processors.

I feel that the whole concept of standardizing things have changed since Google and
Apple entered the fray.  SDOs are still clinging to their charters instead of constantly
reviewing them against a volatile market (now evolving at an entirely different pace
than during the Microsoft hey-days).

Although I may (of course) be wrong, my prediction FWIW, is that Google will effectively
set most important client-side security-standards, making traditional standardization
redundant.

That Europe lost all influence on the client-platforms is partly due to our overly high trust
in standards instead of action.  Nokia was the last (in)famous victim of this theology.

I believe W3C needs to reform its workings if it wants to remain a factor to count on in
this space.  In particular "Gap Analysis" seems to be entirely missing from the plot.
Maybe this is too controversial for an SDO since it (indirectly) alludes that existing
products and solutions are somewhat "inferior"?   Well, since the latter is the #1 driver
for innovation you got to deal with it or become irrelevant (while staying "politically correct").

Anders
Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2013 06:24:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:24 UTC