Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Concern on Payment Method Identifier requirement (#200)

@maoyanhua, 

Thanks for writing. One of the issues you raised (about subclasses) is covered in issue 30:
   https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/issues/30

I've been trying to capture hte use cases here:
 https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/PMI_Notes

Regarding the point about minting identifiers, the group has recently resolved that payment method identifiers will be absolute URLs. (We've not yet formally decided NOT to have
some form of short name, but if we do I would expect those would normalize to absolute URLs.)
URL "ownership" would be defined outside of our specification.

Regarding your matching algorithm: that's still an open question for us. If we do not adopt any grouping or subclassing semantics in v1, then the matching algorithm will be "simple" (e.g., some form of URL equivalence). It will grow in complexity the more semantics we want to support.

Would you be ok if I closed this issue and we continue "grouping semantics" discussions in issue 30?

Thanks!

Ian


---
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/200#issuecomment-219709899