Bring back shipping and contact information.

[rsolomakhin]

This reverts commit 6d44221: "Remove support for address, contact info from PR API (align with pull request 955) (#389)."

---

Preview | Diff

[rsolomakhin]

As addresses and contact-info are coming back to PaymentRequest API, we would like to keep address/contact-info support in Payment Handler API, too. @stephenmcgruer & @ianbjacobs PTAL.

[ianbjacobs]

Hi @rsolomakhin,

Are there any changes to the text other than restoring what was once there?

Also, I'd like to request the addition of an informative note acknowledging that we will be looking at privacy implications of restoring these features. See my suggested text in PR API:
w3c/payment-request#996 (comment)

Thank you!

[rsolomakhin]

Hi @ianbjacobs!

Should this pull request be discussed in a W3C meeting before merging?

Are there any changes to the text other than restoring what was once there?

I also cleaned up a couple of ReSpec warnings. That should be negligible. This is 99.9% restoring what was once there.

Also, I'd like to request the addition of an informative note acknowledging that we will be looking at privacy implications of restoring these features. See my suggested text in PR API:

I've placed your suggested text in the "Security and Privacy Considerations" section.

[rsolomakhin]

Let's not bring back requestBillingAddress because that was never implemented in Payment Handlers and we don't have concrete plans to implement that in Payment Handlers.

[ianbjacobs]

Thanks for this, @rsolomakhin. Would you be available for a brief summary at the end of the 19 January call?

[rsolomakhin]

Would you be available for a brief summary at the end of the 19 January call?

Yes, I will attend and summarize.

Should this be merged after the 19 January call, or can it be merged now, in your opinion?

[ianbjacobs]

I'm fine personally if you want to merge now and then discuss. I would like to be sure in the discussion that we understand the motivation for the restoration and discuss a process for addressing the privacy concerns previously raised. Thanks again and talk to you on the 19th.

[rsolomakhin]

@stephenmcgruer - Are you also OK with the plan in the #406 (comment)?

[stephenmcgruer]

I did not review the PR in-depth, trusting that it is as described in the above conversation, but the plan SGTM. Thanks Rouslan!