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

> This sounds like a question to put to the group: what is the priority that the message data be designed to be reusable (meaningful, grounded, etc.) outside of the context of some API defined by the group?

Looks like this issue is getting broader than the topic that was raised (I'm partly to blame for that). So, trying to re-focus on the original topic:

> Should well-known identifiers be used for ubiquitous payment methods

I think we have consensus on:

PROPOSAL: Well-known identifiers like "Visa" and "MasterCard" should be used for ubiquitous payment methods.
PROPOSAL: The extensibility mechanism for payment method identifiers is the URL.

We don't yet know if:

1. The well-known identifiers registry lives in the Web Payments specification.
2. The well-known identifiers registry should be machine readable.
3. There is a formal mechanism for expressing the payment method registry (like a JSON-LD context).
4. The APIs are versioned (somehow).
5. The behavior of unknown payment message data is undefined.
6. Payment message data should be designed to have meaning outside of the context of an API call defined by the group.

... and I'm sure there are other unknowns that this thread has identified.

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/WICG/paymentrequest/issues/35#issuecomment-169793764