See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: Ian
[Molly from Microsoft]
Molly: I will work with AdrianB during the next few months
[Mathieu from Google]
Mathieu: Implementing the spec
AdrianHB: I have not finished my action item; will aim to do that by next call
(Nick's action re: short strings not done)
<AdrianHB> ian: short agenda so if AOB please let us know
Issue 20: https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-methods-card/issues/20
Rouslan: there was a question
about who should do validation; the answer we came up with was
"payment app", and in another process
... so we closed the issue with the conclusion that payment
apps should validate data
<adamR> +1 to the conclusion
<AdrianHB> +1 to conclusion
<adrianba> +1
(IJ reminder - I have an action to create a file of network short strings...and the emvco topic is about trademark questions)
IJ: Is there anything else in basic card that needs to happen?
<Zakim> rouslan, you wanted to talk about basic-card status in CHrome
rouslan: I don't think more needs to happen. Since Chrome 57 we have full implementation of basic card spec (with "basic-card" and filters in payment method specific data)
IJ: What should the data about network names look like in an external file? E.g., one string per line?
Rouslan: Seems reasonable
<Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to ask status of W3C hosting registry
Tokenized Payments => https://w3c.github.io/webpayments/proposals/tokenized_cards.html
IJ: Near end of month we'll have
a revised spec
... editors meet next on 24 Jan
Credit Transfer
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-payments-wg/2017Jan/0007.html
http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-methods-credit-transfer-direct-debit/
<AdrianHB> ian: I announced a recent update. We have another significant edit planned
<AdrianHB> ... started as a SEPA oriented spec
<AdrianHB> ... has simplified to generic credit transfer per matts suggestion
<AdrianHB> ... vkuntz is evaluating against SWIFT CGI for common field names etc
<AdrianHB> ... working rev and then will bring back to WG
<AdrianHB> ... need input from implementors on demand for these specs
<AdrianHB> ... filter plus datastructure approach for specs seems to be working well
<AdrianHB> ... expectation for basic card is that it will be a WG note (not a spec)
<AdrianHB> ... there may be friction if we want to change that
<AdrianHB> ... one observation from credit transfer spec is that we thought we'd have a network list but evolved to be a country list for filtering
<AdrianHB> ... comments welcome on spec repo
Payment method good practice => https://w3c.github.io/webpayments/proposals/method-practice/
<AdrianHB> ian: i've been trying to track best practice
<AdrianHB> ... started with max but not sure yet how useful it is until more people look at it
<AdrianHB> ... includes topics like versioning, UI etc. Informal now but may be more visible as NOTE in future
Roy: We are experimenting with the payment app spec and payment request API (as a mediator) in a mobile browser experience.
=> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-payments-wg/2016Dec/0054.html
Roy: This is all experimentation at this point; we will bring feedback back to the group (e.g., via the repo)
AdrianHB: How would the FB mediator differ from the browser experience?
Roy: Stay tuned for more detail.
rouslan: Thanks for this news, Roy. Are you implementing through Webview? Opera (I believe) is interested in that was well.
Roy: Thanks for letting me know
AdrianHB: It would be good to get feedback into the payment apps task force
<AdrianHB> ian: Tf has been meeting weekly
<AdrianHB> ... making good progress on the spec
https://w3c.github.io/webpayments-payment-apps-api/
<AdrianHB> ... expectation is to deal with 3-4 topics (clean up and resolve some q's)
<AdrianHB> ... then bring to group for further review
<AdrianHB> ... then CfC to publish FPWD
<AdrianHB> ... will be brining to Wg around end of January
<AdrianHB> ... worst case we'd deal with blockers at FTF and publish
adamR: We are probably also going to propose how to specify syntactically "recommended apps"
<AdrianHB> ian: the spec is uniquely mature for a pre-FPWD
<AdrianHB> ... which is not to say it good but it has a lot of detail
<AdrianHB> ... even more reason to get more review
<AdrianHB> ... we already have some implementors which is great and indicates we're heading in a good direction
<AdrianHB> ... main reason to move to FPWD is the Wg felt we need to be further along with this to be sure Payment Req won't change after CR
<AdrianHB> ... good F2F discussion
AdamR: We should also get this
spec out to web developer audience sooner rather than
later
... I'd be happier going to FPWD before march
<AdrianHB> +1
AdamR: that way we can have larger conversations more easily
adrianhb: +1 to FPWD sooner
<AdrianHB> ian: discussion has dealt with lots of balancing of merchant and user reqs
<AdrianHB> ... hence taking some time
<AdrianHB> ... comments welcome
next teleconference: 19 January
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/83744/wpwg-201703/
<AdrianHB> ian: registration is open
<AdrianHB> ... 14 so far
<AdrianHB> ... date is 23-24 March in Chicago
<AdrianHB> ... IG may meet on 22 March
"1871"
<AdrianHB> ... visited space and looks like it will be great
<AdrianHB> ... trying to organize a dinner at a local restaurant
<AdrianHB> ... q1: food in the room or outside?
<AdrianHB> Outside please :)
They would like "Participant name/affiliation/title"
<adamR> For the record, I’m agnostic on the food question. :)
<oyiptong> outside++
https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/FTF-March2017
<AdrianHB> ... IETF meets the following week, and have a hotel list: https://www.ietf.org/meeting/98/hotel.html
<AdrianHB> ... feel free to edit agenda
IJ: Anything to note in particular?
Roy: Editors met yesterday. I
don't think anything substantial to signal
... alignment of specs with implementations
20 January at noon ET
https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Adoption2017
IJ: Please bring to the call your experiences in merchant outreach and what would make it easier
AdrianHB: Goal there is for payment app devs to sync up