13:54:33 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wpwg
13:54:33 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/04/06-wpwg-irc
13:54:35 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:54:35 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #wpwg
13:54:37 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
13:54:37 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
13:54:38 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Payments Working Group Teleconference
13:54:38 <trackbot> Date: 06 April 2017
13:54:42 <Ian> Chair: Ian
13:54:55 <Ian> agenda: https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-20170406
13:55:18 <Ian> Ian has changed the topic to: Meeting information: https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Meetings
13:56:32 <Ian> present+
13:56:38 <Ian> present+ Mathieu
13:56:41 <Ian> present+ Alan
13:56:42 <Ian> present+ Michel
13:57:34 <oyiptong> regrets+
13:57:59 <Ian> regrets+ NickTR
13:58:02 <Ian> regrets+ AdrianHB
14:00:36 <dezell> dezell has joined #wpwg
14:01:11 <alyver> alyver has joined #wpwg
14:01:18 <Ian> present+ Andre
14:01:22 <Ian> present+ Dezell
14:01:25 <Ian> present+ molly
14:01:27 <mathp> mathp has joined #wpwg
14:01:27 <Ian> present+ Christian
14:01:30 <Ian> present+ AdamR
14:01:58 <Ian> present+ Max
14:02:01 <Ian> present+ zkoch
14:02:14 <Ian> zakim, who's here?
14:02:14 <Zakim> Present: Ian, Mathieu, Alan, Michel, Andre, Dezell, molly, Christian, AdamR, Max, zkoch
14:02:16 <Zakim> On IRC I see mathp, alyver, dezell, Zakim, RRSAgent, betehess, mweksler, cweiss, Ian, nicktr, Dongwoo, oyiptong, adamR, hober, ShaneM, dlehn, dlongley, manu, schuki, adrianba,
14:02:16 <Zakim> ... JakeA, slightlyoff, emschwartz, davidillsley_, mkwst, trackbot
14:02:33 <Max> Max has joined #WPWG
14:03:02 <Ian> Topic: Structure of this meeting
14:03:14 <Ian> present+ Roy
14:03:53 <Ian> IJ: Chairs not here; I want to formalize any decisions with them next week
14:04:26 <Ian> -> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-20170406 Agenda
14:04:42 <Ian> topic: PR API Issues
14:04:45 <Ken> Ken has joined #wpwg
14:04:49 <Ian> https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/milestone/8
14:05:21 <Ian> scribe: Ian
14:05:29 <Ian> zkoch: The editors triaged yesterday....
14:05:40 <Ian> ...we marked most of MattS's messages as editorial
14:05:54 <Ian> ...we think there are only a few substantive issues
14:06:07 <rouslan> rouslan has joined #wpwg
14:06:07 <Ian> (e.g., 486)
14:06:11 <rouslan> present+
14:06:22 <Ian> ...so the list is essentially what it was at the end of FTF meeting
14:06:31 <Ian> ...this will be what we will target over the next 2-6 weeks
14:06:59 <Ian> IJ: Expectation is issue management, then spec update, then CfC
14:07:18 <Ian> IJ: Any to discuss today?
14:08:25 <Ian> zkoch: We want to discuss issue 481 https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/issues/481
14:08:38 <Ken> Q+
14:08:50 <Ian> zkoch: I'd like to get closure on it
14:09:05 <Ian> zkoch: My inclination is to remove it because it does not materially affect conformance.
14:09:09 <Ian> present+ Ken
14:09:10 <Ian> ack k
14:09:30 <MattS> MattS has joined #wpwg
14:10:48 <Ian> IJ: I also note text elsewhere in the spec: ""The methodData supplied to the PaymentRequest constructor SHOULD be in the order of preference of the caller. "
14:10:48 <dezell> q+
14:11:24 <Ian> Ken: I haven't thought about that one. As a general policy my view is that if we can remove any language that provides an unintended bias or preference it's better for the health of the spec to neutralize it.
14:11:37 <mweksler> q+
14:11:47 <Ian> ack dezell
14:12:16 <Ian> dezell: At the meeting I commented on this point. Removing any non-normative text is ok. Simplifying it is ok, and not entangling the spec with marketing elements is also fine
14:12:36 <alyver> q+
14:12:48 <Ian> dezell: I'm ok with the change
14:12:50 <Ian> ack mw
14:13:26 <Ian> mweksler: I think that this thing that we are trying to do is facilitate merchants using the spec. Merchants today have full control over what they do. The language in the spec already "limits their control"
14:13:32 <Ian> (Spec says "MAY respect their preference)
14:13:47 <Ian> ...I agree that removing the language doesn't materially change anything, but I think the intent is important
14:13:56 <alyver> +1 to Michel's comments.
14:13:57 <alyver> q-
14:14:33 <Ian> ...I think that we should think about the opposite direction: the user agent MUST respect the merchant prefs
14:14:38 <Ken> q+
14:14:48 <Ian> ack Ken
14:15:11 <dezell> clarifying - I am worried about any changes that go against the original intents of the group as chartered.  So far I don't see any of those.
14:15:41 <Ian> Ken: I agree that we want to make things better for the merchant. We may want to look back at the intent in the charter.
14:15:59 <Ian> -> https://www.w3.org/Payments/WG/charter-201510.html WG Charter
14:16:17 <Ian> ...was the goal to get interop or support preferences?
14:16:38 <Ian> ...merchants, brands, issuers may not all be adequately represented here
14:16:47 <Ian> q?
14:16:52 <AlanSamsungPay> AlanSamsungPay has joined #wpwg
14:16:54 <alyver> q+
14:17:03 <Ian> ack aly
14:17:29 <Ian> alyver: I want to add a concern that if the experience is not consistent...if the merchant cannot specify the ordering, that means that payment methods may appear in different order in different browsers.
14:17:48 <Ian> ...that would be one concern we would have...Shopify can control order exactly today
14:17:59 <Ian> zkoch: The Spec does not today guarantee that
14:18:02 <Ian> alyver: I realize that.
14:18:46 <Ian> Proposal: Neutralize language regarding payment method ordering
14:19:04 <rouslan> +0
14:19:04 <adamR> +0
14:19:06 <Ken> +1
14:19:07 <dezell> +1
14:19:19 <AlanSamsungPay> q+
14:19:21 <Ian> zkoch: weak +1
14:19:36 <mweksler> -1
14:19:52 <alyver> -1
14:19:55 <Ian> zkoch: As I understood it, this was identified as a big issue (potentially for networks) so if it's non-normative and can increase support, I'm ok to take it out
14:20:11 <Ian> ack Alan
14:20:12 <dezell> I agree with Zack's characterization.
14:20:34 <Ian> Alan: What does neutralize mean exactly?
14:20:47 <Ian> ...it's the merchant's web site...merchant's need to have maximum guidance for controlling what they do
14:20:58 <Ian> ...and if there are separate contractual obligations, it's their responsibility to meet those
14:21:11 <Ian> q+
14:21:13 <dezell> q+ to bring up another aspect.
14:21:22 <Ian> ack de
14:21:22 <Zakim> dezell, you wanted to bring up another aspect.
14:21:26 <Ken> q+
14:21:44 <Ian> dezell: I agree with Zach's characterization...I see this as mechanical.
14:22:00 <Ian> ...I think as long as we can agree to the mechanical change, that's probably a good thing.
14:22:26 <Ian> ...even talking about ordering is fraught
14:22:33 <Ian> ...so that's one reason I'm in favor of saying less
14:22:37 <Ian> ack Ken
14:23:02 <Ian> Ken: I want to take exception to the prospect that what the merchant wants trumps other preferences.
14:23:24 <Ian> ...we would generally seek balance in a payment environment....costs and benefits to various stakeholders in the ecosystem.
14:23:44 <Ian> ...there are other stakeholders to balance as well such as issuers, card networks, etc.
14:24:04 <Ian> ...I believe that changing the language does not change the merchant's ability functionally
14:24:41 <Ian> ack me
14:28:11 <Ian> IJ: Would it be useful to include informative text about superior user experience in goal, taking into account information from the environment (including PR API data, user prefs and history, e tc.)
14:28:44 <Ian> present+ Wonsuk
14:28:46 <alyver> +1
14:29:13 <Ian> Michel: I think that's fine. It seems like it's the direction things are going in; I'm fine with that and adding that language will help a bit
14:29:26 <Ian> (Add to my list: security considerations)
14:29:54 <Ian> Michel: The concern I have is that we are weakening the spec and making it less likely for merchants to accept it.
14:30:27 <Ian> ...so I'm ok with this change, but want to remain cognizant of the risk
14:30:45 <Ian> q?
14:31:26 <Ken> q+
14:31:29 <Ian> ack ken
14:32:17 <Ian> Ken: Voice of the merchant is important to us. I note the concern. Separately I've been participating in the merchant adoption task force; please get involved to help drive adoption
14:32:18 <Ian> q?
14:33:04 <Ian> Topic: PMI Spec issues for CR
14:33:04 <Ian> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-method-identifiers/milestone/2
14:33:08 <Ian> Ian: I see none
14:33:48 <Ian> IJ: Any for CR?
14:33:53 <Ian> Roy: We only reviewed PR API yesterday
14:35:06 <Ian> [Zach back]
14:35:13 <Ian> IJ: what is expectation about resolving them for CR?
14:35:31 <MattS> Q+
14:35:39 <MattS> q-
14:35:52 <Ian> zkoch: I will triage the PMI list. I did not see new issues filed.
14:36:06 <Ian> ACTION: Zkoch to triage the PMI list of issues and send to the WG
14:36:07 <Ian> q?
14:36:08 <trackbot> Created ACTION-55 - Triage the pmi list of issues and send to the wg [on Zach Koch - due 2017-04-13].
14:36:29 <Ian> Topic: Basic Card
14:36:40 <Ian> Zkoch: It's a small list; some minor modifications to make....
14:36:45 <Ian> ...I don't think anything material will change
14:36:45 <MattS> q+
14:36:48 <Ian> ack MattS
14:37:03 <Ian> MattS: I thought there were some issues around basic card.
14:37:19 <Ian> ..the one that springs to mind is the "notRequiredFields" for Basic Card
14:37:59 <Ian> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-methods-card/issues/29
14:39:14 <Ian> IJ: Did editors review that?
14:40:07 <Ian> zkoch: I will bring this up with the editors. But I think we've had this discussion before. I don't think the arguments have changed even if the discussion has been reraised.
14:40:22 <Ian> ...I don't think we should use "SHOULD"
14:40:46 <Ian> ...I buy the desired functionality (and have heard from merchants as well)
14:40:53 <Ian> ...so I'd rather acknowledge the functionality and postpone.
14:41:31 <Ian> MattS: there's a related issue about ambiguity about optional parameters (issue 26)
14:42:02 <Ian> ....BasicCard only requires PAN. Others are optional.
14:42:26 <Ian> [There are different rules for different schemes]
14:42:39 <Ian> zkoch: Some schemes require fields, others do not
14:44:08 <Ian> zkoch: I don't know how to enforce "MUST return data"
14:45:24 <Ian> zkoch: I will comment on the issue thread
14:46:41 <Ian> MattS: Ian has captured it...this is not about changing implementations. I think chrome meets the requirements. But the spec is ambiguous
14:46:50 <Ian> ...today a compliant app could decide to return only PAN
14:47:03 <Ian> ...therefore someone could comply and be useless
14:47:11 <Ian> ...to me it makes sense that the spec capture the intent.
14:48:08 <Ian> zkoch: My general point is that I agree on what is being said...I don't have a strong objection to the language, but we can't enforce this or compliance test for this
14:48:15 <Ian> ..we can add text but hard to enforce.
14:48:21 <Ian> MattS: I am talking about intent rather than testing
14:48:30 <Ian> ....I think it's useful to capture the intent
14:48:58 <Ian> ...if the group as a whole feels it's not useful, that's fine, but I think that the spec today doesn't capture the behavior of the card networks today
14:49:56 <Ian> zkoch: When we wrote this it was under the expectation that whoever was returning the information would return all the info necessary to complete the transaction
14:50:03 <Ian> ...I'm ok to add text knowing that we can't enforce it
14:50:33 <Ian> see also editorial suggestion in => https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-methods-card/issues/26#issuecomment-290087157
14:50:50 <Ian> zkoch: I will look at issue 26 and look at appropriate langauge.
14:51:09 <MattS> q+
14:51:10 <Ian> topic: Payment Handler API
14:51:40 <Ian> MattS: I've also made some editorial comments ... would like to see in CR
14:51:45 <Ian> zkoch: We will also fix those
14:52:15 <Ian> -> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-payment-apps-api/milestone/1 Things we plan to mark as issues in the spec
14:52:54 <Ian> -> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-payment-apps-api/milestone/2
14:53:32 <zkoch> zkoch has joined #wpwg
14:53:46 <zkoch> ::jazz hands::
14:54:07 <Ian> (No comments)
14:55:02 <Ian> IJ: My expectation is FPWD before CR
14:55:15 <Ian> ...which allows reference to FPWD
14:55:18 <Ian> ...from PR API
14:55:37 <Ian> Topic: Plan
14:55:37 <Ian> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-payments-wg/2017Apr/0006.html
14:55:52 <zkoch> 2-6!
14:55:56 <zkoch> (more like 6)
14:56:09 <zkoch> Let’s say 4-6
14:56:45 <Ian> IJ: Any process questions?
14:57:17 <Ian> Topic: Next meeting
14:57:18 <Ian> 13 April
14:57:52 <Ian> RRSAgent, make minutes
14:57:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/06-wpwg-minutes.html Ian
14:57:55 <Ian> RRSAgent, set logs public
14:59:56 <m_and_m> m_and_m has joined #wpwg
15:03:49 <cweiss> cweiss has joined #wpwg
15:48:56 <zkoch> zkoch has joined #wpwg
16:09:41 <betehess> betehess has joined #wpwg
16:44:37 <betehess_> betehess_ has joined #wpwg
16:52:07 <betehess> betehess has joined #wpwg
16:52:17 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wpwg
17:03:34 <betehess> betehess has joined #wpwg
17:28:19 <cweiss> cweiss has joined #wpwg
17:31:06 <betehess> betehess has joined #wpwg
17:35:52 <betehess> betehess has joined #wpwg
18:03:22 <cweiss> cweiss has joined #wpwg
18:06:15 <betehess> betehess has joined #wpwg
18:27:00 <betehess> betehess has joined #wpwg
18:47:08 <betehess> betehess has joined #wpwg
19:10:04 <cweiss> cweiss has joined #wpwg
21:04:49 <mweksler> mweksler has joined #wpwg
21:09:55 <mweksler> mweksler has joined #wpwg
21:10:44 <mweksler> mweksler has joined #wpwg
21:11:32 <mweksler> mweksler has joined #wpwg
21:12:24 <mweksler> mweksler has joined #wpwg
21:13:08 <mweksler> mweksler has joined #wpwg
21:13:56 <mweksler> mweksler has joined #wpwg
21:14:43 <mweksler> mweksler has joined #wpwg
21:15:31 <mweksler> mweksler has joined #wpwg
21:16:19 <mweksler> mweksler has joined #wpwg
21:17:07 <mweksler> mweksler has joined #wpwg
21:17:55 <mweksler> mweksler has joined #wpwg
21:18:43 <mweksler> mweksler has joined #wpwg
21:19:31 <mweksler> mweksler has joined #wpwg
21:20:20 <mweksler> mweksler has joined #wpwg
21:21:07 <mweksler> mweksler has joined #wpwg
21:21:56 <mweksler> mweksler has joined #wpwg
21:22:44 <mweksler> mweksler has joined #wpwg
21:23:31 <mweksler> mweksler has joined #wpwg
21:37:08 <cweiss> cweiss has joined #wpwg
22:01:51 <betehess> betehess has joined #wpwg
22:33:26 <mweksler> mweksler has joined #wpwg
23:23:31 <betehess_> betehess_ has joined #wpwg