-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Should we us a URL PMI rather than a short-string #59
Comments
-1 to a URL here for the reasons that AdrianHB cited on the call today - there is no need for one given that there is no authority that needs to publish a payment method manifest spec. |
So long as we can resolve the method for easily adding short string I don't disagree. |
I understand the reason of AdrianHB... but maybe we could see from another angle. Is the basic-credit-transfer a specification to be used, that is "as is" or to be derived. for example, we could imagine, Sepa-credit-transfer, Swift-credit-transfer, fasterpayment-credit-transfer and so on. Thos different specs will be "almost" the same but dedicated and managed by the right authority. In my view, each authority should give the proper URL and not a short string. |
Hi @CYV, (We had similar discussions in the context of talking about gateway tokenization.) One idea is for specific payment methods to refer to the basic credit transfer specification's Ian |
There is nothing stopping people taking this spec as is and using the data structures. This would make this spec the equivalent of an abstract base class. I have no issue with that. Does everyone concur? |
Discussions at WG call suggested that use of short string was a 'bridging' technology and Google confirmed it would need a (small) change in the browser if we used a short-string.
We should therefore consider moving to URL.
However what would the URL be, more specifically, what domain would it be under?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: