IRC log of apps on 2017-08-22

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:00:04 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #apps

14:00:04 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/08/22-apps-irc

14:00:28 [Ian]

Meeting: Payment Apps Task Force

14:00:29 [Ian]

Chair: Ian

14:00:42 [Ian]

Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-payments-wg/2017Aug/0014.html

14:03:49 [frank]

frank has joined #apps

14:03:57 [Ian]

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-payments-wg/2017Aug/0014.html

14:04:01 [Ian]

present+ Frank

14:04:11 [Ian]

Topic: Moving the Payments Apps discussions to Thursday's meeting

14:04:49 [rouslan]

+1

14:05:09 [alyver]

alyver has joined #apps

14:05:20 [Ian]

(IJ talks about moving agenda to Thursday calls starting after PR API CR)

14:05:25 [Ian]

present+ alyver

14:05:35 [Ian]

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-payments-wg/2017Aug/0014.html

14:06:08 [frank]

+1

14:06:27 [Ian]

(Some support for doing this)

14:07:00 [Ian]

topic: CanMakePaymentEvent

14:07:30 [Ian]

https://github.com/w3c/payment-handler/pull/170#issuecomment-318779874

14:09:44 [Ian]

IJ: Any suggestions for how to make progress? Rouslan and I are planning to chat with AdamR

14:11:32 [Ian]

IJ: One idea froM Rouslan is "send less data" (e.g., just PMIs and related filters) to reduce (but probably not eliminate) fingerprintability

14:11:57 [Ian]

present+ Ken

14:12:31 [alyver]

q+

14:12:32 [Ian]

IJ: Privacy issue is payment app knowing where you are shopping

14:12:33 [Ian]

ack aly

14:12:50 [Ken]

Ken has joined #apps

14:14:24 [Ian]

present+ Sachin

14:14:40 [Ian]

IJ: Options we have discussed:

14:14:52 [Ian]

- merchant does computation (but then merchant knows everything about user environment)

14:15:02 [Ian]

- browser does computation (but browser vendors have said they don't want to do that)

14:15:19 [Ian]

- payment app does computation via lambda run by browser (but marcos has indicated this is not viable in JS)

14:15:35 [Ian]

- payment app does computation itself (but raises privacy issues about knowledge about merchants where I am shopping)

14:16:12 [Ian]

https://github.com/w3c/payment-handler/pull/170#issuecomment-318801051

14:16:19 [rouslan]

q+ to ask whether anyone remembers the problem with capability filtering

14:17:05 [Ian]

ack rouslan

14:17:05 [Zakim]

rouslan, you wanted to ask whether anyone remembers the problem with capability filtering

14:17:42 [Ian]

rouslan: One things we might proposal is to use capability filtering for basic card (in-browser computation) but for other payment methods invoking canMakePaymentEvent

14:20:21 [Ian]

rouslan: basic card or other w3c-defined payment method spec

14:21:25 [Ian]

q?

14:24:07 [AdrianHB]

AdrianHB has joined #apps

14:24:41 [Ian]

IJ: My expectation is to chat more with AdamR about this.

14:24:59 [Ian]

Topic: Example from Rouslan on two service workers

14:25:04 [Ian]

https://github.com/rsolomakhin/rsolomakhin.github.io/blob/master/pr/sw.md

14:25:19 [rouslan]

q+ to talk about this example.

14:25:55 [Ian]

IJ: High level questions - is this the right design? Should we include it in the spec? elsewhere? The use case is "two payment apps from the same origin"

14:26:16 [Ian]

rouslan: The example shows 2 scopes...allows compartmentalization of payment instruments

14:26:19 [Ian]

ack rous

14:26:19 [Zakim]

rouslan, you wanted to talk about this example.

14:26:28 [Ian]

...e.g., the biz wallet and personal wallet from the same company

14:26:42 [Ian]

...I think having two service workers with different scopes is the best way today to do this

14:27:06 [Ian]

...soon after I did this example, some of our partners came to us and said they needed this functionalitty

14:27:14 [Ian]

..and they tried it and said "This doesn't work!"

14:27:32 [Ian]

...so I looked into it more deeply and it turns out that there was a Chrome bug ("one payment app per origin")

14:27:37 [Ian]

...we've fixed that bug and now the examples work

14:28:05 [Ian]

IJ: Were the partners thus satisfied?

14:28:07 [Ian]

rouslan: Yes

14:28:16 [AdrianHB]

q+ to ask how the icons etc work with scopes?

14:28:19 [Ian]

ack adr

14:28:19 [Zakim]

AdrianHB, you wanted to ask how the icons etc work with scopes?

14:28:23 [Ian]

present+ adrianhb

14:28:43 [Ian]

AdrianHB: My question is how do the manifests work with different scopes?

14:28:55 [Ian]

...is that how you will have different icons and labels?

14:29:06 [Ian]

rouslan: We want to use Web App manifests

14:29:47 [Ian]

...currently, when service worker is registered, we look for manifest file and pull icons and name from there.

14:29:55 [Ian]

...you could have to create 2 manifests for 2 apps

14:30:07 [Ian]

s/2 manifests/2 web app manifests/

14:30:18 [Ian]

...you need to register 2 different payment handlers

14:30:32 [Ian]

...We are currently doing this, but I'm not sure if this approach is the best

14:30:40 [Ian]

..it does not use the payment method manifest

14:30:53 [Ian]

...another approach might be to think about the scope as the payment method

14:31:07 [Ian]

...and follow the payment method manifest spec to download the manifest instead of using the link from the web page

14:31:28 [Ian]

...one advantage of this approach is that "recommended applications" (if we go that route) can be proposed

14:31:45 [Ian]

....the payment method manifest itself points to the web app manifest

14:32:06 [Ian]

...if we continue to rely on a web app manifest file linked from an HTML page, it's not clear how we could do recommended payment apps

14:32:09 [Ian]

q+

14:32:23 [Ian]

...so specific design may change but ultimately we get name/icon from web app manifest

14:34:21 [Ian]

https://w3c.github.io/payment-method-manifest/

14:34:27 [rouslan]

q+

14:34:53 [Ian]

https://w3c.github.io/payment-method-manifest/#manifest-example

14:36:07 [Ian]

AdrianHB: Going through payment method manifest may be problematic for basic card wallets with personal/business distiction

14:36:34 [Ian]

ack rous

14:37:23 [Ian]

rouslan: Regarding overlapping scopes...if you have /webpayments and /webpayments/personal, I think that the question of which worker gets invoked is defined in the spec (e.g., "most specific service worker")

14:37:53 [Ian]

...in terms of the web app manifest "scope," I hadn't considered that previously

14:38:03 [Ian]

...that's a really interesting idea that we should try to integrate into the payment handler spec and our implementation

14:38:10 [Ian]

...I think we need to get some more implementation experience as well

14:40:06 [Ian]

Proposed: Rouslan to add an issue about adding an example illustrating 2 payment apps from the same origin, and linking to his evolving example code

14:40:36 [rouslan]

+q

14:40:39 [Ian]

ack me

14:40:40 [Ian]

ack rous

14:40:56 [Ian]

ACTION: Rouslan to add an issue about adding an example illustrating 2 payment apps from the same origin, and linking to his evolving example code

14:41:26 [Ian]

Ian: This is actually closest to issue 153, so maybe just update your examples

14:41:32 [Ian]

RRSAGENT, make minutes

14:41:32 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/08/22-apps-minutes.html Ian

14:41:37 [Ian]

RRSAGENT, set logs public

14:42:14 [Ian]

topic: #178: Default handler icon. Can we make progress on this?

14:42:34 [Ian]

https://github.com/w3c/payment-handler/issues/178#issuecomment-309778321

14:42:36 [rouslan]

q+

14:43:08 [Ian]

ack rouslan

14:43:19 [Ian]

rouslan: For default icon we are still gathering implementation experience

14:43:49 [Ian]

...we need to consider scope as AHB suggested, need more implementation experience

14:44:22 [Ian]

Topic: #173 Ability to set default instrument for given handler

14:44:44 [Ian]

rouslan: Not sure how much excitement there is for this notion (either from google or mozilla).

14:45:14 [Ian]

...behavior is not yet clear

14:45:31 [Ian]

...perhaps a more concrete proposal would help, but I suggest that we postpone discussion for now

14:46:24 [Ian]

AdrianHB: Regarding issue 173, I think we've not had much discussion about the issue

14:47:10 [Ian]

https://github.com/w3c/payment-handler/issues/173#issuecomment-317497373

14:47:58 [Ian]

ACTION: Ian to put issue 173 on this week's WPWG call

14:48:35 [Ian]

Topic: 190: respondWith behavior not specified

14:48:41 [rouslan]

q+

14:48:47 [Ian]

ack rouslan

14:48:57 [Ian]

rouslan: I think this is currently in progress.

14:49:25 [Ian]

...a Chromium review expressed concern in reviewing paymentrequest.respondWish() and asked for more defined behavior.

14:49:40 [Ian]

...I think that review of the PR is ongoing

14:49:46 [AdrianHB]

s/respondWish/respondWith/

14:50:31 [Ian]

Topic: 116: Relation between merchant order of payment methods and

14:50:31 [Ian]

payment app order of instruments.

14:50:55 [Ian]

https://github.com/w3c/payment-handler/issues/116#issuecomment-317890522

14:51:24 [Ian]

IJ: Propose we give Ken a week to add his proposal

14:53:02 [Ian]

Topic: Next meeting

14:53:17 [Ian]

29 Aug

14:53:24 [AdrianHB]

+1 to move conversation to Thursday call. Do we know if other implementors are showing interest in Payment Handler? (i.e. Microsoft, Apple etc)

14:53:31 [rouslan]

q+

14:53:34 [Ian]

ack rous

14:54:38 [AdrianHB]

I wonders if they will stop joining Thurs calls if we just focus on Payment Handler

14:55:50 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/08/22-apps-minutes.html Ian

14:56:02 [alyver]

alyver has left #apps

15:35:39 [adamR]

adamR has joined #apps

15:47:18 [cweiss]

cweiss has joined #apps

16:07:50 [adamR]

adamR has joined #apps

17:18:31 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #apps