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

> 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]`.

It’s unlikely the W3C will agree to host URLs for these identifiers if they’re meant to be resolvable. For some insight into why, see https://www.w3.org/blog/systeam/2008/02/08/w3c_s_excessive_dtd_traffic/

There’s no reason why the identifiers would need to be under W3C control. If the WG decides they want to use URLs, the WG should mint any domain name(s) needed for hosting them, and put together a plan for maintaining the resources over the long term.

---
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-220498317