Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] PROPOSAL: Payment Method Identifiers taking advantage of URL characteristics (#205)

-1 to the proposal (sorry, AdrianHB). I do think your proposal does provide a way of addressing this issue of large lists of PMIs in the messages, but I'd rather kick that particular can down the road by not creating a complex algorithm to do matching (yet). Let's deploy with the large lists and see what feedback we get from the developer community. I think that many won't care as long as they don't have to generate the long lists (for example, they could use a payment library convenience function to generate the lists).

I think the correct order of operations is:

1. In version 1, don't do grouping, aliasing, or complex matching algorithms.
2. Gather data on all the different types of PMIs used in the system after v1 is deployed.
3. Deploy new PMIs for groupings that make the most sense (99% of the market always uses these 23 PMIs together).
4. In version 2, deploy aliases if people are still asking for them.

---
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/205#issuecomment-221901715