Re: Payment Method Identifiers

> On May 4, 2016, at 10:39 AM, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> Zach and I discussed this before he sent this mail so I support the proposal.
> 
> A couple of additional thoughts:
> 
> ·        The short string list below effectively covers 5 organisations. Our goal should be to drive this list to zero before Candidate Recommendation.
> 

Thanks, that additional bit of information helps.

I am also ok with the proposal.

This approach simplifies the related topics:

 * Equivalence testing (use [1]).
 * Minting policy: Anybody can mint their own absolute URLs.
 * Identified resources: We can decide later, have flexibility, etc.

Ian

[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/payment-method-id/#identifier-equivalence


> ·        One of the motivations is to not get into the “short-string registry” business. Any time someone wants to add themselves to the list, they just need to mint a URL and we will use it.
> 
> ·        For now, we are only discussing these strings as identifiers. In the future, though, we will no doubt discuss what resources the URLs might point to. If we use the relative URL approach that I proposed in Option 1a then this potentially puts a lot of network load on whoever hosts the base URL.
> 
> This was a problem in the past when W3C hosted DTDs and XML namespace schema (in the past, Microsoft’s network was regularly rate limited to w3.org because of errant software running on machines behind our proxies that was frequently downloading schema definitions).

--
Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447

Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2016 17:53:04 UTC