W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments@w3.org > April 2016

Re: Update on Web Payments Working Group [The Web Browser API Incubation Anti-Pattern]

From: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 13:54:41 +0200
Message-ID: <CADEL5zvasBvzgeEi4qM_TwjiF5fvDx6xFTffF_DNCLg6=QcK-g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
Cc: Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
On Apr 5, 2016 12:08 PM, "Joseph Potvin" <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:
> RE: "fundamental limitations of the Web (browser) platform which still
haven't been adequately addressed"
> This could be stated as a frustration or as a neutral fact.

That Apple Pay is not working on the Web is probsbly not because Apple
deliberately wanted to cripple their product.

I'm pretty sure that they will launch a Web interface fairly soon which is
less fuzzy integrating in existing Web sites than the W3C solution which
more or less presumes a total rewrite of the checkout system (the downside
of "revolutionary" approaches).


> The W3C staff have constraints they must work within, being employees of
a sort of 'secretariat' that has a sort of 'security council' of members
whose role is similar to the role played by exceptionalist countries of the
UN (some permanent, some invited in on 'good' behaviour'.  They are what
they are.
> Both the W3C and the UN organizations are representative of their
corporation and country members respectively, within structures that are
indeed 'inclusive' of everybody else to some extent, but whose most
significant decision-making processes are shaped by and generally favor
> If one's mission is to optimize digital payments, and certain aspects
that would be optimally addressed in W3C specs don't make it through the
W3C's processes, then go for a work-around. One could explore whether
certain of those functional objectives might instead be pursued through the
ITU or the IETF. And one can explore whether something like a parallel spec
can be put forward (as in the tradition of "dissenting opinions" in law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissenting_opinion ). These need not be done
in an antagonistic way.
> Joseph Potvin
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 1:24 AM, Anders Rundgren <
anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Joseph,
>> The Web Payment WG is NOT trying to create a "Payment Standard" but
something that they claim can build on existing and new payment standards.
>> Will this succeed?  I doubt that because there are very few signs of any
genuine interest from for example VISA (they have recently launched their
own API).
>> The core problem with Web Payments is (IMO) not related to formats or
processes, but to fundamental limitations of the Web (browser) platform
which still haven't been adequately addressed.
>> Anders
>> On Apr 4, 2016 11:29 PM, "Joseph Potvin" <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:
>>> RE: "if W3C is not the answer for this"
>>> The Web is the optimal layer for standardization of some but not all
aspects of Web-mediated payment. Therefore this current schism may be a
blessing in disguise, if this turns out to be a useful bifucation point at
which the excellent integrated work that's been done to date is critically
assessed to determine which open standards and open quasi-standards bodies
may be the optimal ones to migrate certain elements to. The the community
can build upon many existing partnerships amongst open standards bodies.
>>> I've forwarded below a message I originally sent a year ago relating to
working relationships between W3C and other standards bodies, and amongst
varous other standards bodies.  Maybe this, just in terms of the way of
thinking suggested here, might lead to some ideas in response to: "Now
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
>>> Date: Fri, May 22, 2015 at 7:55 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [glossary] External data dictionary reference requirements
>>> To: E.R.Fekkes@rn.rabobank.nl, Web Payments CG <
public-webpayments@w3.org>, Web Payments IG <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>
>>> RE: Are there specific standards bodies FORMALLY recognized by the W3C?
>>> Hmm, in fact I was hoping there were but I don't know.
>>> In domains like payments and e-commerce, any Venn diagram of the
relevant deep-rooted standards bodies will look like the overlapping
circles of the Olympic logo. So formal liaisons seem to me indispensible to
facilitate dedicated efforts to map the structure, semantics & syntax.
Ideally the sort of formal recognition I had in mind for this IG would be
like these examples:
>>> W3C & OASIS
>>> W3C & OMA http://www.w3.org/2004/05/W3C-OMA-Agreement-FINAL.html
>>> W3C & VoiceXML Forum http://www.w3.org/2001/10/MOU.txt
>>> Here also are some non-W3C examples:
>>> * IEC, ISO, ITU & UN/ECE
>>> http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/ebusiness/Pages/mou/MoUMG-members.aspx
>>> * ISO & IEC
>>> http://www.iso.org/iso/jtc1_home.html
>>> * IETF & ITU
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6756
>>> * IETF & IEEE 802
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-rfc4441rev-08
>>> RE: I am not sure if it is right to label this as the PRIMARY default
external source.
>>> This IG has correctly identified ISO 20022 as the primary default
external standard for the exchange of financial information. In a nutshell,
my recommendation is for this W3C initiative to equivalently reference both
ISO 20022 and ISO 19845 (i.e. UBL
http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=66370  due for final
vote next month).
>>> SWIFT brought uniformity to the financial info for 20022, but things
aren't quite as elegant in the realm of e-commerce standards. Rather than a
nice orderly Olympic logo sort of Venn Diagram, it's more like scribbled
circles, with the result that there's been considerable confusion about
which standards bodies cover what aspects. Here's a (2011) effort by
OASIS/UBL Co-Chair Ken Holman to situate these various circles:
>>> Original source: http://ubl.xml.org/book/export/html/234
>>> Things have advanced in the subsequent 4 years, and based on what I
see, I recommend that UBL be given the same status as 20022 in this IG's
work, acknowledging that there are likely a few aspects where they overlap
an must be reconciled.
>>> This also means that anything which shows up in this W3C IG/GC work as
"in scope", and which is already addressed in those other standards (ditto
for others that I've not mentioned here), should be pointed at, not
re-created or re-stated.
>>> Joseph Potvin
>>> Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
>>> The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
>>> jpotvin@opman.ca
>>> Mobile: 819-593-5983
>>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Melvin Carvalho <
melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4 April 2016 at 22:02, Christopher Allen <
ChristopherA@blockstream.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Steven Rowat <
steven_rowat@sunshine.net> wrote:
>>>>>>   C. The real question is: can Credentials be solved in an
open-standard way, thereby creating a playing field on which an open Web
Payments standard can flourish?
>>>>> I have not introduced myself yet, as my firm's membership
(Blockstream) has been approved for W3C but has not been activated pending
>>>> Welcome!  Anyone is welcome to participate in community groups.  Being
a paid member will also give you access to working groups.  Ive been
excited by blockstream work for some time, and am working on payment
channels too.
>>>>> However, I want to be clear that the interest from my firm, and in
general from the blockchain and bitcoin community that we represent, is
around verified credentials that supports decentralized identity, private
channels, and selective disclosure/blinding/non-correlation of identifiers
and attributes. This is the main reason why we are joining W3C.
>>>> This is a great use case, and one that is well aligned with web
standard IMHO.  I am also personally working on these use cases, and feel
that W3C standards represent an unparalleled solution.
>>>>> We are planning to make substantial contributions of open source code
and cryptographic develop effort in these areas over the next year (which
is part of why I'm involved with http://ID2020Summit.org at the UN) and
desire this to be part of an open process.
>>>> Awesome!
>>>>> But if W3C is not the answer for this, we'll move our efforts
>>>> The W3C isnt a magic bullet.  It produces web based specifications,
normally or a high quality in terms of extensibility and interop.  The
specs can sometimes be hard to read and over a number of documents.  And
some use cases require putting pieces together like lego, but I think the
foundation is largely sound.  Teasing out the right answers from various
specs and putting them together into a technical solution takes a bit of
skill, I think, but also is a lot of fun.
>>>> Every company has to make their bets, but Im not sure what
alternatives you'd look at.  There's many opportunities to make bad bets in
this area.  Do you have any particular concerns?
>>>> Great to have you participating, I'd love over time to try and test
interoperability (especially if you've selected javascript for a language).
>>>>> -- Christopher Allen
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2016 11:55:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:46 UTC