On Monday 2015-08-10 07:37 +0200, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 9:01 PM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote: > > I've been somewhat involved in the discussion that led to this > > charter, which occured on the list > > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/ . See > > also my blog posts at http://dbaron.org/log/20150731-payments and > > http://dbaron.org/log/20150803-ecosystems on the topic. > > > > Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should > > say as part of this charter review. > > Can we change the charter such that it explicitly addresses the risks > you mention in your post? E.g., by disallowing such a solution?
For what it's worth, I've drafted the following comments on http://www.w3.org/2015/06/payments-wg-charter.html , although I'm still unsure if they're concrete enough. (I don't really feel like I have the expertise to make them more concrete.) -David I'd like to ensure that it's possible to build a Web browser that can make payments using the deliverables of the working group, as they are actually deployed, without also building a payment processing system (e.g., building the relationships with banks, etc., that have been necessary for Apple to build Apple Pay) or having a business partnership with somebody who has done that. Doing this seems possible technically, but it requires participation from banks or payment systems in order to register payment instruments (and run whatever systems are required by that registration). I don't think the deliverables and scope described in the current charter are precise enough to tell whether that's the case. I regret not previously pushing back harder against the charter being unclear and using terms (like "digital wallet") that abstract away what is actually happening. I think both the scope of the charter and the deliverables need to be clear about what the working group is actually being chartered to build. Who are the parties involved in the Web payments ecosystem, which of the group's deliverables apply to each party, and are all of those parties actually willing to make this happen in the way that the charter describes? In slightly more detail: I think the Scope section of the current charter draft could be interpreted in different ways. It's not clear which communications between parties in the payment process are part of the standardized message flow, and which are part of the proprietary "delivery mechanism". Nor is it clear which common delivery mechanisms will be standardized. The use of the concept of "digital wallet" doesn't seem to add anything, since it is described only as a container for payment instruments, of which a user may have more than one. The partitioning of payment instruments into digital wallets is completely undefined, as is the relationship of digital wallets to any implementation concept. The deliverables section doesn't really say what is being delivered. The first three bullets are goals, the middle three bullets are messages between unspecified parties (in which the term "digital wallet service" appears out of nowhere, undefined), and the last three bullets are use cases. -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out, And to whom I was like to give offense. - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
