[w3c/webpayments-method-identifiers] How should we address payment method manifest files? (#19)

@zkoch wrote a first proposal:
https://github.com/zkoch/zkoch.github.io/blob/master/pmi.md

Since then there have been a number of suggestions. Here is a first pass summary of some pros and cons (help welcome!):


1) Hard-coded URL
        Pro: Simple configuration
        Con: Limits server to one manifest file per payment method. Squats URI space.
2) HTTP Link header (used in conjunction with caching)
        Pro: Greater flexibility in naming, serving multiple resources.
    Content negotiation
        Pro: One URL
        Con: (1) challenging for server operators to deploy correct mime types; conneg is even more complex (2) Proxies and caches do not always work well with conneg
    Serve JSON for PMI; link to human readable content from there
        Pro: Optimizes for the information we know today we want to associate with a PMI. Still allows follow your nose to get more information.
        Con: People get back data instead of human readable info by default so less friendly.


-- 
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-method-identifiers/issues/19