Re: [browser-payment-api] Suggest two alternative payment method identifier proposals (#34)

@dlongley,
You wrote: "A human readable resource may also contain machine readable information"

Yes, that's true, but for the moment we are not recommending that. 

> "and that we should instead be informing user agents that there is no expectation of machine readable information at these resources."

Yes.

>"I don't see any reason to tell user agents that they shouldn't automatically dereference these URIs -- it may become a best practice to also include machine readable information at them (indeed, I think that should be the case)."

What would you put there?

> "Perhaps we should say that a user agent may not automatically dereference the URIs because there is no expectation of machine readable information?"

I think "MAY NOT" is not the right RFC2119 language. I don't mind saying somethign like:

 "We do not recommend that user agents automatically dereference these URIs because there is currently no general expectation that machine readable information will be retrieved."

Ian

Ian

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/pull/34#issuecomment-195403497