-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 57
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Payment link type in HTML #1015
Comments
We're going back to add Prior Art and Alternatives Considered to our explainer. We'll post again when that's done. |
Hi @ynyhxfo thanks for sending this our way and apologies it's taken so long to get some feedback to you. Looking at this, it looks like it's sitting in WICG but it's payment related. There's no discussion of web payment in the explainer. Can you let us know how this relates to web payment, if at at all, and what the plan is to bring this out of WICG into a more long-term home? |
Hi @torgo , Happy new year and thanks for your feedback! To answer your question about the relationship between this proposal and web payment Regarding the venue for this proposal
We're open to discussing this further and exploring alternative venues if necessary. However, we believe that standardizing this feature within the HTML specification offers the most straightforward and consistent approach. Note Thanks, |
こんにちは TAG-さん!
I'm requesting an early TAG design review of Payment link type in HTML.
Certain push payment flows can cause high friction for users (e.g. display of a QR code that the user needs to scan with an eWallet app). Browsers may have the ability to more easily facilitate these payment flows (e.g. if the user has a wallet installed on their device that supports the underlying payment method for the displayed QR, or has a browser extension for the supported eWallet). Payment link type in HTML is designed to better assist users with payments.
Further details:
You should also know that...
The public design doc for the Chromium implementation might also be interesting, as it has more concrete details on what a full implementation will look like, and on one browser's concrete plans for the initial set of supported URL schemes.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: