-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 42
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Small fixes + displayItems #88
Merged
Merged
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
Redo section 10.3 intro based on 14 Dec discussion
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.
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.
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
Conflicts: index.html
- 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
These changes seem to be included in PR #89 |
Doh! Yes, my fault. I created a new branch for 89 but forgot to roll back the index to separate these edits from the ones specific to 89. I will endeavor not to make that mistake in the future. :) Ian |
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.
https://www.w3.org/2017/01/17-apps-minutes.html#item05