W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-payments-wg@w3.org > January 2016

Re: [paymentrequest] Should well-known identifiers be used for ubiquitous payment methods (#35)

From: Manu Sporny <notifications@github.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 08:48:37 -0800
To: WICG/paymentrequest <paymentrequest@noreply.github.com>
Cc: webpayments <public-payments-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <WICG/paymentrequest/issues/35/169724070@github.com>
> The API overall would be grounded ... to a latest version potentially if the application prefers that approach

This would be a disaster if a term ever changed it's range (allowable values) or semantic meaning (and we have examples of where that has happened in the past).

You can't have a message that is sent from a system and be consumed by two applications w/o having ONE clear mechanism for interpreting that message. If a v1 system sends the same message to a v2 system and a v3 system, the message could be interpreted by the v2 and v3 system differently (to catastrophic effect, since these are payment systems). Similarly, a v2 and v3 response without a known context being processed by a v1 system could result in something similarly terrible happening.

If you're not going to ground the message to a context, you have to ground the message to a version. 

A context grounds a message to a version explicitly and formally.

A version number grounds a message to a version explicitly, but informally (the message could still be interpreted by two systems differently, especially when the payload of the message can be extended by the sender).

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Received on Thursday, 7 January 2016 16:49:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:43:13 UTC