-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31
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
CR Snapshot Update Request for Payment Request API #287
Comments
hasEnrolledInstrument is not mentioned in "Changes since last publication"; I recommend you add it. The Transition Request says Basic Card is normative now, but the reference is still listed as Informative. It appears that Permissions Policy should be normative and referenced from Section 15 else that section 15 is ambiguous. The updateWith() method depends normatively on DOM; why was DOM dropped from Normative References? 3.1 needs a reference for "payment method identifier"; this was also dropped from the Normative References. |
Hi @swickr, You wrote: "hasEnrolledInstrument is not mentioned in "Changes since last publication"; I recommend you add it. " Under substantive changes I had written: "hasEnrolledInstrument. Note: This feature is shipping in Chromium-based browsers and for now has been moved to the living Editors' draft of Payment Request. That is: as of now it remains part of the API post version 1.0." Were you thinking I should say something else? You wrote: "The Transition Request says Basic Card is normative now, but the reference is still listed as Informative" That's my error then. Apparently there's no change here and I was wrong. I will fix the transition request. I will chat with the editors about the other references and get back to you. Thanks! |
Hi @swickr,
Please let me know if there are any remaining issues. Thank you! |
Transition approved. Thanks for the clarifications. |
Document URLs
https://w3c.github.io/payment-request/
(GitHub commit 0d11184)
Link to group's decision to request transition
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-payments-wg/2020Oct/0012.html
Link to previous Candidate Recommendation transition or update request
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2019AprJun/0035.html
Substantive changes
The following features are not supported interoperably and thus have been removed from Payment Request 1.0. They had not been identified as "at risk":
Other changes:
For the full commit history, see:
https://github.com/w3c/payment-request/commits/gh-pages
[5] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2019JanMar/0154.html
Any changes in requirements?
None. However, some minor changes to dependencies:
Wide Review of substantive changes
Because changes largely involved removing unsupported features, we did not solicit additional wide review since the previous Candidate Recommendation publication.
We did alert horizontal review groups of our Call for Consensus to return to Candidate Recommendation.
Issues status
https://github.com/w3c/payment-request/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aclosed+created%3A%3E2019-12-12
Formal Objections
We received no new Formal Objections through the October 2020 Call for Consensus [0] to the Web Payments Working Group.
Regarding the previous objection from Sam Weiler (addressed during the previous transition request) Ralph wrote:
"[T]he Working Group should continue to work with the community
during CR on issues #842 [2] and #72 [3] to identify means for
payment methods to specify those address fields required for the
transaction, confirm whether the specified PaymentMethodData data
attribute is sufficient for carrying that information in the
basic-card payment method, and recommend good privacy practice for
consideration in other payment methods."
Following the April 2019 publication, Working Group participants, in discussion with Sam Weiler, developed a proposal to allow incremental request of billing and shipping information [4]. However, as we wrote in the Call for Consensus:
At this time we are proposing to return this specific to Candidate Recommendation (en route to Recommendation), without changes to address Sam Weiler's objection. We expect to revisit the topic as part of "post 1.0" discussions.
[0] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-payments-wg/2020Oct/0006.html
[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2019AprJun/0003.html
[2] w3c/payment-request#842
[3] w3c/payment-method-basic-card#72
[4] w3c/payment-request#873
Any changes in implementation information?
Implementation report (showing Chromium and Webkit support):
https://w3c.github.io/test-results/payment-request/all.html
Less than two view:
https://w3c.github.io/test-results/payment-request/less-than-2.html
We are in the process of adjusting the test suite and regenerating
the implementation report. We expect a "clean" implementation report
by the time we request to advance to Proposed Recommendation.
Deadline for further comments
14 January 2021
Any changes in patent disclosures?
No.
See Requirements for updating a Candidate Recommendation Snapshot for further information.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: