The Payment Request API is something completely different. Coil is about webmonetization see 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.
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.
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.