W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments@w3.org > May 2015

Re: Final countdown for NPAPI

From: Jonathan Kingston <jonathan@jooped.com>
Date: Sun, 03 May 2015 09:17:47 +0000
Message-ID: <CAKrjaaXdxj3z2PyWE48DDLxr9jeCz45VnAaAF3GxgEoLnsVQ3g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Cc: Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
I'm not really sure how NPAPI helps with implementing something like Apple
pay here though?

>From what I understand is WebCrypto WG is mostly stalled by the TLS
specification agreeing on the next crypto for TLS.

How is U2F only focusing on "super providers"? There is only one browser
implementation that is stable and Yubikey have shown enough demos for
anyone to integrate with that.
Mozilla is implementing the same API which will be the production version.

I feel as if the web doesn't have a native crypto platform as you suggest
however comparing that to apps which are designed for set hardware isn't
comparable. MessagePorts could be leveraged with the right vendors to
create the same sort of experience as Apple Pay however I suspect most are
holding out for U2F support which is coming soon.

There was a thread from early 2014 which you were on from the WG chairs
which seemed to suggest an interest, again I don't really think it was
dropped at all just in that up until very recently there as not been much
progress with FIDO.
Besides there are lots of examples of competing specifications, I don't
think the W3C is shy about when they get it wrong either.

How do non standardised apps help anything here? As mentioned earlier, the
interface is setup to talk to these features already it is mostly getting
the interest and standardising the API that is the issue here.



> This really depends on what your ambition is and who you are targeting.
>
> If (for example) you would be targeting the credit-card networks, it is
> simply put not technically feasible creating anything comparable to Apple
> Pay for the Web.
>
> There was some hope that the WebCrypto.Next effort would address this but
> this activity failed and it appears that everybody nowadays has left the
> party.
>
> The browser-vendors (and just about everyone else as well) lead by Google
> have rather fled to the FIDO Alliance and what's cooking there is hard to
> say since members have to sign NDAs.  Based on their initial deliverable,
> U2F, it seems that they are focusing on the needs of "SuperProviders",
> something which I believe is the opposite to what the world in general
> wants.
>
> The W3C staff seem unable dealing with the fact that they lost to FIDO
> although there's an obvious way to regain the interest: Create technology
> for a distributed Web which effectively competes with FIDO.  OTOH, this
> would create considerable tension so I guess it won't happen in the W3C
> either.
>
> From what I can see in the market and also have received privately as
> actual feedback, the world outside the (somewhat elitist and academic) W3C
> has no problems with "Apps".
>
> Anders
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2015Apr/0053.html
>
>
>
>>
>> Anders
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 3 May 2015 09:18:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:40 UTC