Re: [w3c/webpayments-payment-apps-api] Payment apps and methods, are they the same? (#35)

> there's a reasonable case for combining payment method and payment app information in a single manifest, controlled by the payment method owner.

Agreed but we must not make the payment method identifier and the payment app identifier the same thing. A single identifier that identifies two different things is a horrible idea.

I am not a linked-data expert but I'm pretty sure that we can have a payment app manifest embedded inside a payment method manifest and have different URL's for both.

I'd like to hear from @ianbjacobs, @msporny or @dlongley (or anyone else that know this domain better than me) if having a payment method identifier of `http://proprietarymethod.example.com/payment-method-manifest/` and a payment app identifier of `http://proprietarymethod.example.com/payment-method-manifest/#default-app` is legal (assuming that the payment app manifest object is embedded inside the payment method manifest and named `default-app`).

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-payment-apps-api/issues/35#issuecomment-246295920