W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments@w3.org > November 2014

Re: discovering an authority endpoint

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 00:16:03 -0500
Message-ID: <546D7913.7000706@digitalbazaar.com>
To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
CC: Web Payments <public-webpayments@w3.org>
On 11/19/2014 01:50 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> works for me ... should we call it /webpayments going forward, 
> instead of payswarm?

I'm fine with that as long as there are no objections from the
community. We didn't want to foist this payswarm approach on the
community unless it agreed that it was a good path to follow.

> also works, not mutually exclusive with the first method -- maybe use
> hydra and/or void?

It's not mutually exclusive, but we do want to try and nail down the
normative text. Which is the MUST here?

1. MUST expose service URLs at .well-known, or
2. MUST expose service URLs via either conneg or <script/> JSON-LD
   tags in the root HTML document on the domain?

Personally, I think we should reject the .well-known approach... because
we're going to end up with a plethora of .well-known endpoint URLs and
figuring out what REST API services a particular website exposes could
end up requiring 20-40 HTTP requests vs. the 1 HTTP request to get the
conneg'd root document containing all service endpoints.

Thoughts? If you'd agree to it, and there are no objections from the
rest of the community, we could just drop the .well-known approach.

-- manu

Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: The Marathonic Dawn of Web Payments
Received on Thursday, 20 November 2014 05:16:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:37 UTC