Update to tokenized card spec to include more examples and additional…

[kphfb]

… details

[ianbjacobs]

Thanks, Kevin! I have a couple of minor suggestions:

• s/The intention is for this to extend from/This specification extends

• s/supports sending the/supports sending a/ (We've not introduced the notion of a "token/cryptogram combination" yet)

• I suggest we delete "There is often a higher cost associated with issuer tokens." People are going to decide which token type they want to use for a variety of reasons, and this feels to me both incomplete as far as "help in making a choice" and also unnecessary to understand the specification.

[webpayments]

Sounds good, I agree with the changes

From: ianbjacobs notifications@github.com Reply-To: w3c/webpayments reply@reply.github.com Date: Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 12:36 PM To: w3c/webpayments webpayments@noreply.github.com Cc: Subscribed subscribed@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [w3c/webpayments] Update to tokenized card spec to include more examples and additional… (#213) Resent-From: public-payments-wg@w3.org Resent-Date: Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 12:37 PM

Thanks, Kevin! I have a couple of minor suggestions:

· s/The intention is for this to extend from/This specification extends

· s/supports sending the/supports sending a/ (We've not introduced the notion of a "token/cryptogram combination" yet)

· I suggest we delete "There is often a higher cost associated with issuer tokens." People are going to decide which token type they want to use for a variety of reasons, and this feels to me both incomplete as far as "help in making a choice" and also unnecessary to understand the specification.

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/w3c/webpayments/pull/213#issuecomment-280451973, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APFrHACDZOCtOEZq0klmCyNleuFBCOJzks5rdLNDgaJpZM4MDfYV.