Re: W3C Web Payments Use Cases 1.0 first public draft

On 4/16/15 12:45 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:

> What I have found is over 99% of the payments so far, I've been
> working on are a very simple use case, namely:
> Alice pays Bob <amount> <currency>
> Would this be considered part of section A -- "Future Work"?  Or is
> this kind of payment covered in an existing use case, because the ones
> I looked at all look more like purchases than payments.
> I'm slightly sure where my work fits into the intersection of the IG /
> CG / WG, or if it intersects at all.


I wrote about this in reply to the Executive summary; no replies:

I admit my reasoning there seems a bit speculative (in fact, 
hot-headed), and towards the conspiracy theory end of the continuum -- 
but, now Melvin's come back with some data that supports it; thank 
you. ;-)

And even having calmed down, I'm still thinking that shunting off the 
simplest A->B payments between two people as 'Future Work' is a 
mistake (and a slightly suspicious one).

So I'll repeat my final paragraph from that email:

"Final speculation -- in for a penny, in for a pound ;-)  -- I suspect 
it's going to happen anyway; if the Web Payments IG doesn't want to 
touch it, then Ripple/Bitcoin/whatever +Mobile Payments will do it, 
and it will have a huge effect, in all likelihood, and subvert some of 
the WP IG standards work (if they ignore it). "

Steven Rowat

Received on Friday, 17 April 2015 00:22:04 UTC