On 28 December 2014 at 08:05, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com > wrote: > On 2014-12-27 17:45, Melvin Carvalho wrote: > >> >> <snip> > > Melvin, I don't feel an urge to shoot down anything, I just want to >> understand how things work. >> Since this list is intended for creating input to payment standards >> it is a reasonable ambition. >> I guess the other folks here then understand what you are doing, I >> must confess I still don't :-( >> >> >> I'm just associating balances with browser certificates, then allowing >> > > access to premium content to those with a positive balance, and giving a > 402 to those that do not. > > To me that's a nonsensical description that fills no purpose in a payment > standardization context. > You always need to specify the entities involved. > > In addition, I don't even think the idea using HTTP 402 actually buys you > anything since it > has no meaning in a browser (and thus for the user) which means that there > must always be > a *proxy* involved which does the actual work. That's OK but such a proxy > can use whatever > "insufficient funds" return indication to carry out its work since this > like all other AJAX- > based schemes anyway builds on a convention. > > Anyway, without a trusted UI and/or application concept we have nothing > that has any chance of > getting traction on the traditional web; it is better dealing with Android > and iOS which are > MUCH more suited for payments than web browsers. > HTTP 402 is already standardized. It means "payment required". > > > To me the eternal question (in this context NB), is simply "who is > doing what and with whom and why" > > The Zero Click guys certainly didn't bother much about explaining > that, maybe it's a trade secret? > > > Just a proof of concept I think. > A very bad one since they (apparently) hijack the browser and "reserve" HTTP 402 for themselves. Anders > > Cheers, > Anders > > > > Anders > > > > >
Received on Sunday, 28 December 2014 23:33:56 UTC