The expectation of the Web Payments Working Group is that those who mint payment method identifiers that are URLs (see [[METHOD-IDENTIFIERS]]) will also publish machine readable information that describes how that method participates in the PaymentRequest ecosystem. This specification defines the format and addressing of payment method manifest files.
This specification intends to address the following use cases:
This section gives an examples of payment method manifest.
// payment-manifest.json { // Android: "android": [{ "package": "xyz.bobay.app", "version": 10, "sha256_cert_fingerprints": ["14:6D:E9:83:C5:73:06:50"], "platforms": { "play": "https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bobspayments.app1" } }], // Web: "name": "Bob's Payments", "icons": [{ "src": "icon/lowres.webp", "sizes": "48x48", "type": "image/webp" }, { "src": "icon/lowres", "sizes": "48x48" }, { "src": "icon/hd_hi.ico", "sizes": "72x72 96x96 128x128 256x256" }, { "src": "icon/hd_hi.svg", "sizes": "257x257" }], // iOS: "ios": {...}, // Other supported payment apps: "externally_supported_apps": ["https://alicepay.com/pay"] }
The link header concept is defined in RFC5988. In this specification, HTTP link header is used to point to the payment method manifest file. For performance reasons, it is desirable to be able to retrieve all information about a payment method (both human-readable and machine-readable) in a single HTTP request. HTTP link header could be used to achieve this goal.
The format of the HTTP link header for manifest is:
For example, the following HTTP link header could be used:
A new relationship type "payment-method-manifest" need to be resisted by IANA.
Define here the overall file format in a way that enables forward and backward compatibility.
The expectation is that the manifest contents may change over time. What is our extensibility mechanism?
How are unrecognized names handled? Bad values?
This specification defines two sections of a payment method manifest file:
In the following example, the payment method owner has declared that:
// payment-manifest.json { // Android: "android": [{ "package": "xyz.bobay.app", "version": 10, "sha256_cert_fingerprints": ["14:6D:E9:83:C5:73:06:50"], "platforms": { "play": "https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bobspayments.app1" } }], // Web: "name": "Bob's Payments", "icons": [{ "src": "icon/lowres.webp", "sizes": "48x48", "type": "image/webp" }, { "src": "icon/lowres", "sizes": "48x48" }, { "src": "icon/hd_hi.ico", "sizes": "72x72 96x96 128x128 256x256" }, { "src": "icon/hd_hi.svg", "sizes": "257x257" }], // iOS: "ios": {...}, // Other supported payment apps: "externally_supported_apps": ["https://alicepay.com/pay"] }
Talk here in more detail about externally_supported_apps, etc.
Talk here in more detail about payment_apps, etc.
How is a default app identified?
What happens when there is no payment method manifest available? Is it the responsibility of this specification to define a single error handling behavior? Or at least some security considerations?