- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 19:09:50 +0100
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: Web Payments <public-webpayments@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKaEYhJ=KJK0EoacjD6rjP0iAMC2s69gt+wdVuuvj8=EbavjNQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 18 November 2015 at 19:12, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: > On 11/16/2015 03:53 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote: > > But I like your idea. > > It's in spec form here: > > http://web-payments.github.io/web-payments-http-api/ > > > Question 1: What about a "payment" header which gives the client a > > little more of an idea of what it's going to. Location is just > > fine, but relies on the 402 being there. Payment can be used with > > any return 4xx code, which may be easier to implement with existing > > systems. > > Good point, the spec above is a bit schizophrenic about this point right > now. Could you log it as an issue against the spec above? > > https://github.com/web-payments/web-payments-http-api/issues > > I noted your comment here: > > http://web-payments.github.io/web-payments-http-api/#issue-1 > > but it would be good to have an issue on it. > > > One thing im cautious of is having different meta data for a > > resource based on the return code. That sounds like an audit > > nightmare. > > Yeah, that should be an issue as well. Here's what it would look like in > your nightmare scenario here: > > > http://web-payments.github.io/web-payments-http-api/#processing-a-payment-request > > > Question 2: how would the payment URI know two key factors: > > > > - Which URI you are accessing > > You could: > > 1. Use a "Referer" header. > 2. Put the 402 response w/ payment request on the resource itself. > 3. Encode in the query string. > 4. Encode in an HTTP header. > > > I've implemented most of this but not the promises based API. That > > sounds interesting. Im sure I'll need this in future, but can > > probably get by without to start with the proof of concept. > > Keep in mind that the 402 flow will probably be for automatic processing > (machines), whereas the Promises-based flow is meant for interactive > scenarios (people using a device to execute a payment). > > I don't think it's a good idea to mix the two as, while the messages are > the same, the programmatic interfaces are different. > > > I'd be happy to work with interested parties to turn the prototype > > into production quality, and create a spec around it. Estimated time > > frame about 1 month of work ... but I'm working on about 10 different > > things, so 6 months is probably more suitable. > > Spec is above, please start logging issues. Another editor on it would > be great. > Thanks! It's on my todo list ... > > -- manu > > -- > Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny) > Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. > blog: Web Payments: The Architect, the Sage, and the Moral Voice > https://manu.sporny.org/2015/payments-collaboration/ > >
Received on Sunday, 22 November 2015 18:10:19 UTC