- From: Zach Koch <zkoch@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 04 May 2016 01:03:51 +0000
- To: Payments WG <public-payments-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOsZg64d4JCTCkVExa1i-TZ7ni6EgLp3rbj=2UcRPAbHQFYH9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Hi all - I want to once again jumpstart the conversation around payment method identifiers. My hope is that we can reach some form of consensus over the next couple of weeks, as I think it's one of the major parts of the browser API spec that we still don't have a firm answer on. In short, I want to propose a modified version of Option 1b <https://w3c.github.io/browser-payment-api/specs/method-identifiers.html#option-1b> in the current spec <https://w3c.github.io/browser-payment-api/specs/method-identifiers.html>. Namely, I think all payment method identifiers should be absolute URLs, but I do not think we should try and maintain a short identifier registry (at least, not in the long run). We do need to bootstrap the ecosystem, however, without waiting for the major payment methods (e.g. visa, mc, etc) to define those URLs. To that end, I would propose we define a (very) short list of payment methods that we write into the spec as a means of jumpstarting things, but that we plan to remove them as soon as the short-listed schemes provide an absolute URL that can replace them. My proposed starting list: visa visa-debit visa-credit mastercard mastercard-debit mastercard-credit unionpay unionpay-debit unionpay-credit amex discover My hope is that in the not-too-distant future we're able to remove these short codes from the spec and instead rely on the schemes themselves to provide the absolute URLs for these, e.g. https://visa.com/payment-methods/visa-debit (or similar). I think relying purely on absolute URLs has a number of benefits, but I would encourage your feedback. Hopefully we can find some time on the call on Thursday to discuss things in more depth as well. Thanks, Zach
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2016 01:04:30 UTC