Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should well-known identifiers be used for ubiquitous payment methods (#10)

On 2016-05-18 07:26, Rouslan Solomakhin wrote:
> I think short-form identifiers can be relative URLs under W3C control.
> For example,
>   * |visa| -> https://w3c.org/payments/visa
>   * |amex| -> https://w3c.org/payments/amex
>   * etc
> So |[SHORT-FORM]| is a shorthand for
> |https://w3c.org/payments/[SHORT-FORM]|.

just a historical note: this is exactly what RFC 4287 did, and it turned 
out that allowing two ways to identify the same thing was not very 
robust. implementation support was just not good. so RFC 5988 ended up 
deprecating this, and went back to only allowing one lexical identifier. 
i think that was a smart decision. allowing aliases always is a tricky 
thing; unique identifiers are much more robust.


---
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/10#issuecomment-220071102