Re: [w3c/webpayments] [Tokenized Card Payment] Replace usage of 'last4' with 'suffix' (#211)

> @Nick Can you elaborate  bit on the cases where last 4 doesn’t make sense?

Because merchants in some jurisdictions may be subject to different requirements, be them lax or more stringent. FACTA in the US, for example, requires five digits or less - there are some merchants (a small number, I'll give you) who truncate to five instead of four. Since the goal for this spec seems to be to allow tokenized cards to plug directly into a basic card processing flow we should probably try and support those merchants with their existing flows.

Putting that aside, there's nothing to stop a regulator in a particular country from deciding that they want to, say, truncate to three digits on receipts. So it's because of those global variations that I'd strongly recommend not placing any assumptions about the length of the number in the property name. If `suffix` doesn't feel right I'm sure we can find something else that fits?

> The other note that I would add, and another can of worms, I would recommend moving away from card references and instead replace "card" with "account". 

Given this seems to inherit in part from basic card I'm not sure that makes sense without changing the basic card naming to match (which I think might be a good idea).

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/issues/211#issuecomment-280434724