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

Re: Wallet in Windows 10

From: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:52:23 +0200
To: Asbjørn Ulsberg <asbjorn@ulsberg.no>
Cc: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>, Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <56277C77.1050401@gmail.com>
On 2015-10-21 13:30, Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:
> 2015-10-21 11:47 GMT+02:00 Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>:
>
>> 2015-10-21 10:57 GMT+02:00 Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>:
>>
>>> I assume you meant "of course want 4.2 to happen right now" -- even if
>>> some interests target 4.1 as the end-game.
>
> Yes, of course. Sorry about the typo.
>
>> On the IG list a week and a half ago I suggested that an effort be made
>> towards a framework for "definitions of "digital wallet". 4.2 can be
>> advanced without waiting if we all understand what the various camps agree
>> and disagree about.
>
> True, but it's very hard to get any leverage without the wallet owners
> actually investing in and having some sort of ownership to the process
> and end result.

Indeed.

>
>> 4.1 [hopefully] won't happen
>
> Fingers crossed!

:-)

>
>>   and 4.2 in reality would require a "framework implementing/supporting a
>> number of fundamentally different wallets and associated payments systems.
>
> Yes. A protocol based on a common ontology would be needed.

I think the idea of wrapping [mostly] secret payment protocols
in a common ontology and interfaces have severe limitations.
It feels like a "blue sky" kind of spec.

>
>> I rather expect local payments to become more like web-payments; that is: an
>> increasing set of arbitrary payment options.
>
> How are these supposed to interoperate, then, do you expect? Shouldn't
> there be an underlying platform on which the different payment options
> are just implementation and user interface details?

They would not interoperate.

>> The only way that *maybe* could change this would be a project supported by
>> many different entities that also had the goal of unifying web and local
>> payments.
>
> Yes.
>
>> This would surely NOT be an W3C effort since there's no compelling reason
>> excluding 99.999% of all potential parties from the party.
>
> Yes, there's a lot of initiative happening locally now, but they will
> soon enough end up on point 3 in my list, where momentum stops and
> they start looking out of their municipality and across borders. Then
> interoperability becomes important, and a W3C backed standard could
> help them interoperate with other wallet owners on the open web
> instead of through B2B integrations and dealings behind closed door
> meetings.

Just to demonstrate the payment industry's crummy ways of working I
asked in a related security list how the payment industry envisions
using payment cards (maybe only virtualized dittos) on the open Web.
There's no answer to that and the real W3C member wouldn't dare asking
such a blunt question.

The DRM-requirements by ISO is also an indicator that this isn't for real.
Building open standards based on closed technology is a pretty poor idea.

Anders
Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2015 11:52:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:43 UTC