is supporting haip:// really a MUST requirement?

[jogu]

Currently haip says:

As a way to invoke the Wallet, at least a custom URL scheme haip:// MUST be supported.

(and has a 'may' for other options)

I'm not 100% convinced this helps. It probably leads to unnecessary conflict on the OSes that only allow one app to claim that scheme.

[charsleysa]

It has the same issues as openid4vp:// and adds yet another custom scheme. I would support removing it entirely, or at least removing it as a requirement.

[jogu]

We discussed this a little on the (unofficial part of the) working group call today.

People convinced me that it's not harmful to support haip://, it does give verifiers one guaranteed way of launching a haip compatible wallet. It's upto verifiers to figure out if that is useful to them or not, and we already allow ecosystems to define their own in addition.

As the issue author, I'm withdrawing the suggestion and hence closing the issue.