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

Re: Payment Method Identifiers

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 14:57:13 -0500
Cc: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Zach Koch <zkoch@google.com>, Payments WG <public-payments-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <0EE40C51-EED2-4669-A756-A2C7E30A672F@w3.org>
To: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>

> On May 4, 2016, at 2:44 PM, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com> wrote:
> 
> > ·        The short string list below effectively covers 5 organisations. Our goal should be to drive this list to zero before Candidate Recommendation.
> 
> This reinforces my belief that short-strings/aliases are adding more complexity than value.
> I second Manu's caution that once we start using them they will never be deprecated.
> 
> We should also consider Matt Saxon's assertion that the card payments method spec should not jsut be for basic card payments and should evolve to include new ways of passing card payment data in future (as opposed to having a new card payments method spec).
> 
> i.e. Will we mark these short strings as deprecated in future versions of the spec or how do we realistically phase them out?

I am hearing Adrian B say “They will never see Recommendation.” Having “not been recommended” they will not need to be deprecated.
We will need to mark them loudly as such.

Ian


> 
> On 4 May 2016 at 19:51, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> > 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
> 
> 
> 
> 

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




Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2016 19:57:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 4 May 2016 19:57:18 UTC