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

On 2016-05-26 16:42, Manu Sporny wrote:
> The more I think about this, the more I prefer not attempting to do
> aliases in v1. Aliases are an optimization that we'll have to figure out
> how to do in the future... once we have a more complete catalog of all
> the different PMIs.

definitely repeating myself here but here we go: aliases are a bad idea 
to begin with. even if you started from day 1 you would end up with 
implementations that only support/understand the version of the aliased 
identifier the developers cared about.

if you introduce aliases later on it gets worse: you'll have deployed 
software only supporting the canonical identifiers. if you now throw 
aliases into the mix, you can be certain to end up with a brittle mix of 
code that only supports the canonical version, and newer code that also 
supports the aliases.

it's good to stay away from aliases for now. but just keep it that way.


---
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-221893424