Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] What is the format for payment method identifiers for distributed extensibility (#11)

Here’s some raw feedback I’ve gotten on this question so far from soliciting opinions from others with experience writing and implementing specs for the platform:

* “I’m inclined to say [option] 2 [reverse domains] since URLs have terrible ergonomics”
* “「There is no way to automatically dereference a payment method identifier from this option to a resource located at a URL.」is the listed disadvantage… that sounds like RDF, I think I’m now convinced option 2 is the way to go”
* “That poll is super misleading… The alternatives here are URLs vs simple strings”
* “Everyone needs to understand that a new token will only become supported by shipping a new version of a browser, I don’t see how else this would work. So having com.visa.foo is cute, but kind of pointless too”


---
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/11#issuecomment-213496552