13:49:13 RRSAgent has joined #apps 13:49:13 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/09/05-apps-irc 13:49:21 Meeting: Payment Apps Task Force 13:49:25 Chair: Ian 13:49:37 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-payments-wg/2017Sep/0001.html 14:00:16 alyver has joined #apps 14:01:19 present+ rouslan 14:01:21 present+ alyver 14:01:23 present+ 14:03:26 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-payments-wg/2017Sep/0001.html 14:03:53 topic: Recent changes 14:03:54 https://w3c.github.io/payment-handler/ 14:04:15 Topic PR 208 14:04:19 https://github.com/w3c/payment-handler/pull/208/ 14:04:36 https://github.com/w3c/payment-handler/pull/208/files 14:04:40 rouslan has joined #apps 14:05:22 q+ 14:05:28 IJ: Should we merge this clarification? 14:05:38 rouslan: I have started to write some tests for payment handler 14:05:50 ...first tests are that IDL is implemented in the browser 14:06:05 https://w3c-test.org/payment-handler/ is 404.... 14:06:17 rouslan: I would not block this PR on testing 14:06:40 present+ Ken 14:07:11 +1 to merging this clarification 14:07:19 +1 14:07:56 topic: Testing payment handler 14:08:18 IJ: First thanks! How does it feel to write tests? 14:08:20 Ken has joined #apps 14:08:27 rouslan: Requires some ramp up to learn how the harness works. 14:08:43 ...engineers should be able to get up to speed and be productive in a matter of a week 14:09:02 https://github.com/w3c/testing-how-to/blob/gh-pages/README.md#web-spec-testing-how-to 14:09:15 https://github.com/w3c/payment-request/blob/gh-pages/test-plan.md#test-plan--payment-request-api 14:10:07 IJ: Could you have a look at the last URL to add to it? 14:10:15 rouslan: My ramp up was longer because I started a new test suite 14:10:31 ..the rules for the best of class test suite have changed slightly, so there are no concrete examples right now 14:10:54 ...(1) https only (2) works in service worker (3) works in regular window context 14:10:57 ...I had to experiment to set it up correctly 14:12:43 IJ: Should we (some of us interested) use some of this slot for testing work moving forward? 14:13:07 (Not hearing uptake for that) 14:13:16 Topic: Issue 173 - user hint 14:13:26 q+ 14:13:32 IJ: Any implementation experience? 14:13:35 ack rouslan 14:13:55 rouslan: We've implemented this; working fine. You can check it out in Canary implementation of Chrome for Android 14:14:00 ...the API is there but the UI will improve 14:14:19 https://github.com/w3c/payment-handler/pull/206 14:14:29 https://github.com/w3c/payment-handler/pull/206/files 14:15:27 IJ: Should this be attached to a different interface? 14:15:47 rouslan: Works fine on payment manager 14:16:00 Proposal: to merge this attribute (pull request 206) 14:16:03 +1 14:22:49 +1 14:23:21 Resolved to merge PR 206 14:23:50 topic: Issue 116: Relation between merchant order of payment methods and payment app order of instruments. 14:24:40 https://w3c.github.io/payment-handler/#instrument-display-ordering 14:25:04 https://github.com/w3c/payment-handler/issues/116#issuecomment-317890522 14:25:58 (now 5.1) 14:26:05 • The user agent MUST favor user-side order preferences (based on user configuration) [AXP suggests DELETE…or behavior) over any other order preferences]. • AXP suggests DELETE The user agent MUST make available matching payment handlers that correspond to the supported payment methods provided by the payee. However, the user agent is NOT REQUIRED to make available payment handlers that pose security issues and SHOULD inform the user when a payment handler is[CUT] 14:27:32 q+ 14:27:38 IJ: I have another proposal - delete all the bullets 14:27:42 ack alyver 14:28:10 https://w3c.github.io/payment-handler/#ordering-of-payment-handlers 14:28:23 Bullet 1 today is: The user agent MUST favor user-side order preferences (based on user configuration or behavior) over payee-side order preferences. 14:28:29 Bullet 2 today is: The user agent MUST display matching payment handlers in an order that corresponds to the order of supported payment methods provided by the payee, except where overridden by user-side order preferences. 14:28:40 Bullet 3 today: The user agent SHOULD allow the user to configure the display of matching payment handlers to control the ordering and define preselected defaults. 14:29:35 Ken: We should favor user configurations 14:30:15 Ken: We support filtering but not preference expression other than by the user 14:31:18 Ken: Also want to require UA's to allow user config 14:31:26 • The user agent [AXP suggests ‘MUST’ FOR ‘SHOULD’] allow the user to configure the display of matching payment handlers to control the ordering and define preselected defaults. 14:31:30 ==== 14:32:21 alyver: Regarding dropping "user behavior"...I am ok with that. 14:32:32 ...I am more curious about dropping the entire second bullet 14:34:17 q+ 14:34:30 IJ: I am in favor of removing bullets and letting browsers do the right thing 14:34:31 ack alyver 14:34:52 Q+ 14:35:43 IJ: I am reluctant to over constrain....there are security issues, etc. 14:35:45 ack Ken 14:39:05 Ken: I think the user needs to be able to configure what payment handlers they will be using. 14:40:59 IJ proposed: "The user agent MUST favor user-side order preferences over any other order preferences" 14:41:26 Q+ Why dont you think "User Preference will fly?" 14:41:36 ack Ken 14:41:42 q+ 14:43:10 ack aly 14:43:22 IJ: I don't think we can specify "must allow user configuration" 14:43:41 q+ 14:43:59 alyver: Should we drop the bullet point on security issues...? 14:44:25 rouslan: I expect we will not allow bad payment apps 14:44:31 ...we could do through spec language or some other way 14:45:10 IJ: In any case we can talk about security outside section 5.1 14:45:35 Propose to move this text to the security considerations section: "the user agent is NOT REQUIRED to make available payment handlers that pose security issues and SHOULD inform the user when a payment handler is unavailable for use." 14:45:38 +1 14:46:00 (IJ: e.g., 9.4 payment app authenticity) 14:46:15 q? 14:46:23 ack rous 14:47:37 IJ Proposal: 14:47:56 - replace bullets of 5.1 with "The user agent MUST favor user-side order preferences over any other order preferences" 14:48:09 - Move this sentence to 9.4: "the user agent is NOT REQUIRED to make available payment handlers that pose security issues and SHOULD inform the user when a payment handler is unavailable for use." 14:49:17 IJ: Let's come back to this issue next week having reflected on these proposals. 14:51:51 Ken: Suppose a payment handler wanted to be displayed first, how would that work ? 14:54:13 IJ: Today third party software providers don't have a means to affect how they are displayed in my browsing environment 14:57:29 alyver has joined #apps 15:01:20 alyver has joined #apps 15:01:28 IJ Proposal: 15:01:31 - replace bullets of 5.1 with "The user agent MUST favor user-side order preferences over any other order preferences" 15:01:39 - Move this sentence to 9.4: "the user agent is NOT REQUIRED to make available payment handlers that pose security issues and SHOULD inform the user when a payment handler is unavailable for use." 15:02:27 Topic: Next meeting 15:02:34 (IJ may do a pull. request on the second bullet) 15:02:42 19 Sep 15:02:44 +1 15:02:54 RRSAGENT, make minutes 15:02:54 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/09/05-apps-minutes.html Ian 15:03:00 RRSAGENT, set logs public 16:08:13 adamR has joined #apps 16:38:30 adamR has joined #apps 17:13:45 Zakim has left #apps 17:14:13 adamR has joined #apps 18:47:46 adamR has joined #apps 18:53:02 adamR has joined #apps