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

On 2016-04-23 18:13, kirkalx wrote:
> @dret <https://github.com/dret> I'm not entirely sure I agree, although
> the specifics would matter. Access to a decentralized payment method via
> a centralized identifier and centralized identifier registry seems
> problematic to me. Getting rid of de-referencing helps...

right now the majority opinion seems to be that payment method 
identifiers are just that: identifiers. they are *not* dereferenced.

think of it this way: when you code a client, you consult the registry 
of well-known payment methods and pick the ones you want to support. 
let's say your decentralized method has identifier "42". once your 
client finds that identifier, it starts engaging in whatever payment 
protocol the payment method "42" requires. the registry does not even 
enter the picture at runtime. it's design-time only.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-registries-01#section-5.6


---
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-213862412