Re: [webpayments] Payment Method Identifier Registry should have oversight / formal structure (#25)

On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 9:25 AM, ianbjacobs <notifications@github.com> wrote:

> A URI is no guarantee of interoperability.
>
> Agreed. Registry or not.
>

A Registry with URIs that point to content in well defined, extensible
format(s) is the key to discoverable interoperability.  RDFa, JSON-LD, XML
are all fine ways to capture specific basic characteristics of a payment
method.


> Nor is there any way to discover a newly minted URI without some sort of
> (distributed) registry.
>
>
>    - Search engines.
>    - Marketing by minters
>
>
Really?  I mean, of course, but that's the opposite of the direction that
we should be going.  Those are tools for end users.  Those are not suitable
tools for an application to use, nor are they the method we should be
recommending to application developers.  Can you see us saying "NOTE:
Wallet developers SHOULD periodically do a comprehensive web search to
discover new, interesting payment methods in which their users may be
interested."?  Or "NOTE: Wallet developers SHOULD be sure to support
payment methods when they see excellent advertisements for them during the
Super Bowl."?  Surely not.


>


-- 
Shane McCarron
halindrome@gmail.com


---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/issues/25#issuecomment-162558613