Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Identifiers or Locators (#150)

On 2016-04-21 14:40, Adrian Hope-Bailie wrote:
> (I think) I agree with @ianbjacobs <https://github.com/ianbjacobs> that
> having a convention for what is found when dereferencing a payment
> method identifier would be great (and content-type negotiation can be
> used to return a human readable payment method spec vs machine readable
> something) but shouldn't be mandatory.

if such a route is taken (URI payment identifiers with an option for 
people creating them to use HTTP URIs), then the spec should be very 
clear about the fact they are identifiers only.

the spec of the "payment scheme description language" then could be a 
completely separate and independent spec, as there could be multiple 
such schemes, and they would not interfere with the basic "identify the 
payment scheme by URI" payment model.


---
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/browser-payment-api/issues/150#issuecomment-213168058