Meeting minutes
Next steps SPC to Candidate Recommendation
smcgruer_[EST]: In removing user activation there was a concern about SPC being called maliciously from a background window
w3c/
… reasonable UX concern
… we're going to add some text to say that you can't call from a background tab.
… it turns out there will be no implementation change in Chrome
… the only outstanding topic is whether to spec it in PR API or in SPC.
Ian: Can we do in both?
smcgruer_[EST]: Yes. It makes more sense in PR API
w3c/
Ian: We should be a CR by mid-May.
smcgruer_[EST]: Change of plan - we should do this in SPC since I don't have evidence that you can't call PR API in a background tab in webkit
Ian: We can change SPC later also if we want (even as CR)
JeanLuc: I looked at the pull request re foreground tab. Even if someone calls from a bg tab, there would be a UX.
smcgruer_[EST]: The spec does not say how the UX is displayed. In Chrome, the UX is tied to a tab, so you wouldn't see it until the tab became visible. But PING was concerned because that is not required by the implementation.
… we already don't allow PR API in a background tab anyway.
… because of bad UX to switch to a tab and have a modal window show up in someone's face.
Next steps WPWG charter
Ian: I propose that we request that the Director initiate AC review of charter with restored text
<cferro> +1 to review charter
<smcgruer_[EST]> +1, we have no objections to re-chartering (pending usual internal counsel review of the new charter)
Clinton_: Do we have an expectation of how the change to the charter that would affect the UI/UX
smcgruer_[EST]: Informal view - the proposed text should not inhibit our ability to do SPC
… also note that WebAuthn has text like this as well
JeanLuc: There's more UX specificity in 3DS, for example.
Ian: Spec should not be as specific as EMVCo 3DS. Spec should not say "how" but should say "what". And SPC is not just for cards.
… Chrome can also do what it wants
smcgruer_[EST]: Right: you can't spec the card art size; that's a browser implementation issue not a spec issue
<smcgruer_[EST]> And we as a browser implementor welcome that sort of feedback :)
JeanLuc: So each browser can make its own decision on implementation
...the point of the experience is to have a recognizable 3DS UX
...Not sure SPC can comply with the 3DS test case as written
Gerhard: +1 to not defining UX specifics; but it may be useful to point implementers (of the API) at guidance that is published by other parties so that browser implementers can build a compliant implementation
smcgruer_[EST]: +1 to Gerhard. Adoption is important and fulfilling requirements of systems will drive us in the right direction
<Zakim> smcgruer_[EST], you wanted to comment on wider goals too
smcgruer_[EST]: It'd be valuable to have more browser vendors in this group to talk about future of payments on the web
AdrianHB_: I agree having more implementers in a group is great
ACTION: Ian to start a CfC regarding a change to the charter
Review actions from remote meeting
From 27 March minutes:
- Ian to work with Chairs to reach out to Apple to understand more about issue 262. Status: Outreach done (and we had discussion today).
- Ian to work with pilot organizers to determine value of a proposed change to the fallback UX. Status: Ian reached out to Stripe.
- Gustavo to help describe user journeys for continuing (part of the fallback UX discussion). Status: In progress
Upcoming meetings
- Next meeting: 27 April
- 11 May canceled