Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency Types and Rendering (#185)

I've been thinking about this over the weekend, and I have the following opinions:

1. URLs are no good. The reason being that it's not just the mediator that needs to understand the currency identifiers, but also the payment apps. I think we want to make the hurdle of adopting this specification as small as possible, and that includes not forcing the payment providers to deal with a weird new way of specifying currency. At the end of the day, who decides what a valid currency identifier is? It's not the web payment specification -- it's the individual payment apps.

2. I think we can get away without specifying a presentation standard. What will happen if we specify nothing, is that everyone will keep using the currency identifier format everyone is used to, which is the three-or-more-letter currency codes (USD, NOK, BTC, DOGE, etc.) For the well-known currencies, the browsers already know how to display these, and for the less well known ones, displaying the currency code itself will work perfectly well (e.g: MIL 0.01).

3. If we really want to add presentation information, we must do so outside of the currency identifier field. @adrianhopebailie suggested an "additional, optional, property like `displayFormat`" near the start of this thread, and I think that would be the way to go. Such a property would fit well inside the [CurrencyAmount](https://w3c.github.io/browser-payment-api/specs/paymentrequest.html#idl-def-currencyamount) dictionary.

---
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/185#issuecomment-222431665