Catching up #4
Merged
Catching up #4
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
* Rough idea of how payment app matching with lambda functions might work. * Changes from discussion on #76
Redo section 10.3 intro based on 14 Dec discussion
* (Deleted this edit by mistake before merged) Redo section 10.3 intro based on 14 Dec discussion * Edits based on recent changes and discussions This was not a comprehensive review of the document. However, I reviewed it in light of some recent decisions and did some updates: * Given 4 January discussion about recommended payment apps, I reviewed the text on that topic and made changes. * I also cleaned up some text on registration given the new assumption that registration IS a prerequisite for usage of a payment app that conforms to this specification. * It has also become clear that this specification is not designed to address native payment apps, and so I deleted some text on native payment apps, and also stated more clearly that those mechanisms lie outside the scope of this document. * IMPORTANT: It is my current understanding that a payment app identifier will designate service worker code. Therefore, the spec now says that; we’ll discuss whether this was the right edit at our 10 January call. * I tried to reduce instances of the word “display” in light of recent discussions about “enabling the user” rather than always talking bout display of information. Nonetheless, some instances of “display” still remain in the spec where they make sense. * I added mention of HTTP Link headers for finding payment app manifest files; we may or may not need that but I’m keeping this spec aligned with the payment method stuff. * I added mention of paymentRequestID and otherwise cleaned up discussion of reconciliation. * Now that we have canHandle I removed some other notes and provided a forward reference to it. * Edits based on recent changes and discussions This was not a comprehensive review of the document. However, I reviewed it in light of some recent decisions and did some updates: * Given 4 January discussion about recommended payment apps, I reviewed the text on that topic and made changes. * I also cleaned up some text on registration given the new assumption that registration IS a prerequisite for usage of a payment app that conforms to this specification. * It has also become clear that this specification is not designed to address native payment apps, and so I deleted some text on native payment apps, and also stated more clearly that those mechanisms lie outside the scope of this document. * IMPORTANT: It is my current understanding that a payment app identifier will designate service worker code. Therefore, the spec now says that; we’ll discuss whether this was the right edit at our 10 January call. * I tried to reduce instances of the word “display” in light of recent discussions about “enabling the user” rather than always talking bout display of information. Nonetheless, some instances of “display” still remain in the spec where they make sense. * I added mention of HTTP Link headers for finding payment app manifest files; we may or may not need that but I’m keeping this spec aligned with the payment method stuff. * I added mention of paymentRequestID and otherwise cleaned up discussion of reconciliation. * Now that we have canHandle I removed some other notes and provided a forward reference to it. * Updated formulation based on 10 January discussion Comprehensive edit to clean up description of the model and how recommended payment apps fit in: https://www.w3.org/2017/01/10-apps-minutes * Add link to issue 48 per AHB request
* (Deleted this edit by mistake before merged) Redo section 10.3 intro based on 14 Dec discussion * Edits based on recent changes and discussions This was not a comprehensive review of the document. However, I reviewed it in light of some recent decisions and did some updates: * Given 4 January discussion about recommended payment apps, I reviewed the text on that topic and made changes. * I also cleaned up some text on registration given the new assumption that registration IS a prerequisite for usage of a payment app that conforms to this specification. * It has also become clear that this specification is not designed to address native payment apps, and so I deleted some text on native payment apps, and also stated more clearly that those mechanisms lie outside the scope of this document. * IMPORTANT: It is my current understanding that a payment app identifier will designate service worker code. Therefore, the spec now says that; we’ll discuss whether this was the right edit at our 10 January call. * I tried to reduce instances of the word “display” in light of recent discussions about “enabling the user” rather than always talking bout display of information. Nonetheless, some instances of “display” still remain in the spec where they make sense. * I added mention of HTTP Link headers for finding payment app manifest files; we may or may not need that but I’m keeping this spec aligned with the payment method stuff. * I added mention of paymentRequestID and otherwise cleaned up discussion of reconciliation. * Now that we have canHandle I removed some other notes and provided a forward reference to it. * Edits based on recent changes and discussions This was not a comprehensive review of the document. However, I reviewed it in light of some recent decisions and did some updates: * Given 4 January discussion about recommended payment apps, I reviewed the text on that topic and made changes. * I also cleaned up some text on registration given the new assumption that registration IS a prerequisite for usage of a payment app that conforms to this specification. * It has also become clear that this specification is not designed to address native payment apps, and so I deleted some text on native payment apps, and also stated more clearly that those mechanisms lie outside the scope of this document. * IMPORTANT: It is my current understanding that a payment app identifier will designate service worker code. Therefore, the spec now says that; we’ll discuss whether this was the right edit at our 10 January call. * I tried to reduce instances of the word “display” in light of recent discussions about “enabling the user” rather than always talking bout display of information. Nonetheless, some instances of “display” still remain in the spec where they make sense. * I added mention of HTTP Link headers for finding payment app manifest files; we may or may not need that but I’m keeping this spec aligned with the payment method stuff. * I added mention of paymentRequestID and otherwise cleaned up discussion of reconciliation. * Now that we have canHandle I removed some other notes and provided a forward reference to it. * Updated formulation based on 10 January discussion Comprehensive edit to clean up description of the model and how recommended payment apps fit in: https://www.w3.org/2017/01/10-apps-minutes * Move secure context note from intro to where the requirement is listed. * Add link to issue 48 per AHB request
* Change PaymentAppRequestData to PaymentAppRequest ... and try to correct surrounding text that refers to this name. * Introduce the PaymentAppResponse dictionary This is used instead of PaymentResponse to pass data back from the payment app to the user agent.
* (Deleted this edit by mistake before merged) Redo section 10.3 intro based on 14 Dec discussion * Edits based on recent changes and discussions This was not a comprehensive review of the document. However, I reviewed it in light of some recent decisions and did some updates: * Given 4 January discussion about recommended payment apps, I reviewed the text on that topic and made changes. * I also cleaned up some text on registration given the new assumption that registration IS a prerequisite for usage of a payment app that conforms to this specification. * It has also become clear that this specification is not designed to address native payment apps, and so I deleted some text on native payment apps, and also stated more clearly that those mechanisms lie outside the scope of this document. * IMPORTANT: It is my current understanding that a payment app identifier will designate service worker code. Therefore, the spec now says that; we’ll discuss whether this was the right edit at our 10 January call. * I tried to reduce instances of the word “display” in light of recent discussions about “enabling the user” rather than always talking bout display of information. Nonetheless, some instances of “display” still remain in the spec where they make sense. * I added mention of HTTP Link headers for finding payment app manifest files; we may or may not need that but I’m keeping this spec aligned with the payment method stuff. * I added mention of paymentRequestID and otherwise cleaned up discussion of reconciliation. * Now that we have canHandle I removed some other notes and provided a forward reference to it. * Edits based on recent changes and discussions This was not a comprehensive review of the document. However, I reviewed it in light of some recent decisions and did some updates: * Given 4 January discussion about recommended payment apps, I reviewed the text on that topic and made changes. * I also cleaned up some text on registration given the new assumption that registration IS a prerequisite for usage of a payment app that conforms to this specification. * It has also become clear that this specification is not designed to address native payment apps, and so I deleted some text on native payment apps, and also stated more clearly that those mechanisms lie outside the scope of this document. * IMPORTANT: It is my current understanding that a payment app identifier will designate service worker code. Therefore, the spec now says that; we’ll discuss whether this was the right edit at our 10 January call. * I tried to reduce instances of the word “display” in light of recent discussions about “enabling the user” rather than always talking bout display of information. Nonetheless, some instances of “display” still remain in the spec where they make sense. * I added mention of HTTP Link headers for finding payment app manifest files; we may or may not need that but I’m keeping this spec aligned with the payment method stuff. * I added mention of paymentRequestID and otherwise cleaned up discussion of reconciliation. * Now that we have canHandle I removed some other notes and provided a forward reference to it. * Updated formulation based on 10 January discussion Comprehensive edit to clean up description of the model and how recommended payment apps fit in: https://www.w3.org/2017/01/10-apps-minutes * Move secure context note from intro to where the requirement is listed. * Add link to issue 48 per AHB request * - Removed quotes from names in registration example - Add displayItems to 10.1 Payment App Request based on 17 Jan 2017 discussion https://www.w3.org/2017/01/17-apps-minutes.html#item05 - Typo fix
* (Deleted this edit by mistake before merged) Redo section 10.3 intro based on 14 Dec discussion * Edits based on recent changes and discussions This was not a comprehensive review of the document. However, I reviewed it in light of some recent decisions and did some updates: * Given 4 January discussion about recommended payment apps, I reviewed the text on that topic and made changes. * I also cleaned up some text on registration given the new assumption that registration IS a prerequisite for usage of a payment app that conforms to this specification. * It has also become clear that this specification is not designed to address native payment apps, and so I deleted some text on native payment apps, and also stated more clearly that those mechanisms lie outside the scope of this document. * IMPORTANT: It is my current understanding that a payment app identifier will designate service worker code. Therefore, the spec now says that; we’ll discuss whether this was the right edit at our 10 January call. * I tried to reduce instances of the word “display” in light of recent discussions about “enabling the user” rather than always talking bout display of information. Nonetheless, some instances of “display” still remain in the spec where they make sense. * I added mention of HTTP Link headers for finding payment app manifest files; we may or may not need that but I’m keeping this spec aligned with the payment method stuff. * I added mention of paymentRequestID and otherwise cleaned up discussion of reconciliation. * Now that we have canHandle I removed some other notes and provided a forward reference to it. * Edits based on recent changes and discussions This was not a comprehensive review of the document. However, I reviewed it in light of some recent decisions and did some updates: * Given 4 January discussion about recommended payment apps, I reviewed the text on that topic and made changes. * I also cleaned up some text on registration given the new assumption that registration IS a prerequisite for usage of a payment app that conforms to this specification. * It has also become clear that this specification is not designed to address native payment apps, and so I deleted some text on native payment apps, and also stated more clearly that those mechanisms lie outside the scope of this document. * IMPORTANT: It is my current understanding that a payment app identifier will designate service worker code. Therefore, the spec now says that; we’ll discuss whether this was the right edit at our 10 January call. * I tried to reduce instances of the word “display” in light of recent discussions about “enabling the user” rather than always talking bout display of information. Nonetheless, some instances of “display” still remain in the spec where they make sense. * I added mention of HTTP Link headers for finding payment app manifest files; we may or may not need that but I’m keeping this spec aligned with the payment method stuff. * I added mention of paymentRequestID and otherwise cleaned up discussion of reconciliation. * Now that we have canHandle I removed some other notes and provided a forward reference to it. * Updated formulation based on 10 January discussion Comprehensive edit to clean up description of the model and how recommended payment apps fit in: https://www.w3.org/2017/01/10-apps-minutes * Move secure context note from intro to where the requirement is listed. * Add link to issue 48 per AHB request * - Removed quotes from names in registration example - Add displayItems to 10.1 Payment App Request based on 17 Jan 2017 discussion https://www.w3.org/2017/01/17-apps-minutes.html#item05 - Typo fix * Updated based on: 14 dec 2016 discussion https://www.w3.org/2016/12/14-apps-minutes#item02 and 17 jan 2017 discussion https://www.w3.org/2017/01/17-apps-minutes#item06
…ent and seervice worker registration. (#93)
* * updates around payment app registration, more clarity wrt user consent and seervice worker registration. * Per 24 Jan payment app task force discussion, add a sentence recommending display of payment app origin.
This change removes all of the HTTP Post functionality from Example 3, since this appears to cause more confusion than clarification. There are also some issues with this code: #82 (comment) The remaining code is updated to use promises correctly, to unregister from the 'message' event correctly, and to make correct use of the basic-card specification.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.