2 ms·

Most major browsers support the Web Payments Api, but Firefox still has it behind a feature flag [caniuse]. The Web Payments API does not enable micropayments b

Most major browsers support the Web Payments Api, but Firefox still has it behind a feature flag [caniuse]. The Web Payments API does not enable micropayments by usage. The W3C is absolutely not (yet) behind Interledger Payments (ILP), Coil's proposed spec. You can determine this from the fact the unofficial draft spec has giant red watermarks saying "UNOFFICIAL DRAFT", and the following disclaimer: > This document is draft of a potential specification. It has no official standing of any kind and does not represent the support or consensus of any standards organization. [draft_spec] It is being discussed on the W3C's Web Incubator forum, which is promising but not an endorsement by the W3C [wicg]. The Firefox addon, which acts as a shim until they can get native support in Firefox, may well be in partnership with Mozilla (I couldn't find anything about it), but the partnership would most likely be in very early stages. When I click on the link you shared to Mozilla addons I get the warning: > "This is not a Recommended Extension. Make sure you trust it before installing." It has around 350 users, which includes people who installed the add-on but didn't setup payment. In summary, the tech is promising but browser support is a long ways down the road. [caniuse]: https://caniuse.com/#feat=payment-request https://caniuse.com/#feat=payment-request [draft_spec]: https://webmonetization.org/specification.html https://webmonetization.org/specification.html [wicg]: https://discourse.wicg.io/t/proposal-web-monetization-a-new-revenue-model-for-the-web/3785 https://discourse.wicg.io/t/proposal-web-monetization-a-new-...

noxer 7y ago
The Payment Request API is something completely different. Coil is about webmonetization see https://webmonetization.org/ https://webmonetization.org/ Ah and ILP stands for Interledger Protocol not Payment it's a Protocol W3C is a consortium (That's the C in W3C) anyone can join and become a member and join the different work groups to push a new technologies. ILP was originally created by Ripple and got further developed by Coil. Both are members of the W3C. W3C isn't some kind of web-overlord to puts a stamp on things that they like. The consortium creates it they shape it and they approve it. Everyone can participate but the driving force comes from the companies who use these technologies. They are the ones who want to shape it. But as long as a tech isn't widely adopted it will never get the recommendation status. Even HTML5 existed for at lest 6 years before getting recommendation status in 2014 but in 2011 every mayor browser had 95% HTML5 covered already. Getting IPL to a W3C REC is a very long term goal not something people need to wait for to use it. Nonetheless it should be obvious that this whole tech is at the very start, far form perfect and may or may not change the web as we know it today. Still comparable to the Brave tech and I think it tires to solve the problems instead of re-create different versions of the same problems.
- iudqnolq 7y ago
  I assumed you might have been referring to the Payment Request API when you said "all major browsers support it" because that isn't true for ILP. Thanks for the correction on the acronym's meaning. You're right, Coil is a member of the W3C [members]. You're also right that W3C approval isn't necessarily necessary for something to become implemented. However, when I hear "the W3C is behind ILP" I (and I assume many others) interpret that to mean the W3C as a consortium has taken some step towards creating a standard, or even that the consortium has issued some statement that they hope to do so. I don't think that most people would interpret one of the W3C's 400+ members proposing something and putting it up on a domain they bought as the W3C being behind it. HTML5 is a great example of how tech becomes implemented and standardized in the modern era. HTML5 exists because Apple, Google, Mozilla, and Microsoft agreed on it (through the organization WHATWG) and then implemented it. HTML5 was implemented through an even more centralized process, I wouldn't call getting something pushed through by the major browser members something anyone can do just by putting up a good spec. I agree completely that a W3C spec isn't something people need before they can use the extension shim, of course. All I meant to respond to was your claim that browsers and the W3C were behind IPL. A company called Coil is behind IPL. [members]: https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List

noxer 7y ago

The Payment Request API is something completely different. Coil is about webmonetization see https://webmonetization.org/ https://webmonetization.org/ Ah and ILP stands for Interledger Protocol not Payment it's a Protocol W3C is a consortium (That's the C in W3C) anyone can join and become a member and join the different work groups to push a new technologies. ILP was originally created by Ripple and got further developed by Coil. Both are members of the W3C. W3C isn't some kind of web-overlord to puts a stamp on things that they like. The consortium creates it they shape it and they approve it. Everyone can participate but the driving force comes from the companies who use these technologies. They are the ones who want to shape it. But as long as a tech isn't widely adopted it will never get the recommendation status. Even HTML5 existed for at lest 6 years before getting recommendation status in 2014 but in 2011 every mayor browser had 95% HTML5 covered already. Getting IPL to a W3C REC is a very long term goal not something people need to wait for to use it. Nonetheless it should be obvious that this whole tech is at the very start, far form perfect and may or may not change the web as we know it today. Still comparable to the Brave tech and I think it tires to solve the problems instead of re-create different versions of the same problems.

iudqnolq 7y ago
I assumed you might have been referring to the Payment Request API when you said "all major browsers support it" because that isn't true for ILP. Thanks for the correction on the acronym's meaning. You're right, Coil is a member of the W3C [members]. You're also right that W3C approval isn't necessarily necessary for something to become implemented. However, when I hear "the W3C is behind ILP" I (and I assume many others) interpret that to mean the W3C as a consortium has taken some step towards creating a standard, or even that the consortium has issued some statement that they hope to do so. I don't think that most people would interpret one of the W3C's 400+ members proposing something and putting it up on a domain they bought as the W3C being behind it. HTML5 is a great example of how tech becomes implemented and standardized in the modern era. HTML5 exists because Apple, Google, Mozilla, and Microsoft agreed on it (through the organization WHATWG) and then implemented it. HTML5 was implemented through an even more centralized process, I wouldn't call getting something pushed through by the major browser members something anyone can do just by putting up a good spec. I agree completely that a W3C spec isn't something people need before they can use the extension shim, of course. All I meant to respond to was your claim that browsers and the W3C were behind IPL. A company called Coil is behind IPL. [members]: https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List