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

>  1. who owns the registry and why should we trust them?
>  2. is the label "42" attractive in itself or for marketing reasons?
>     (c.f. DNS)
>  3. who owns the 42 entry and why should we trust them?
>  4. if "nobody" owns the 42 entry, and the 42 community forks into 2 or
>     more subsets, all of which claim to be the true 42ers, which group
>     can keep using 42?
>  5. in that situation, is there a (non-manual) way to force each of the
>     subsets to adopt a new identifier that is unique to them?

these are all very good question. and that's why registries usually have 
trusted owners, operational principles, and change policies. these need 
to be laid out, and then you can choose whether you trust them and their 
implementation, or not.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-registries-01#section-5.2

it usually makes sense to have ownership of an entry, and it also 
usually makes sense to disallow changes to entries once they have been 
registered.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-registries-01#section-5.3

for your "42" schism scenario: that would violate the "stable entries" 
constraint. but the question is how the payment methods work, and what 
ownership of an entry means: ownership of the method/protocol, or 
ownership of an/the entry point to using the method/protocol? i 
understand too little of the API as it is to answer that question.

but that's all very abstract. in the end, first the question would be 
which payment method metadata is registered, and how it is managed. if 
you would see concrete scenarios where that would result in the problems 
you're describing above, then that would be a concrete issue to raise 
against the spec.


---
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-213865348