Re: [Uri-review] Review request for payto URI scheme, draft 01

[Larry Masinter <[e-mail]>]

On // and /.

The definition of "payto" is a good example of WHY RFC 7595 gives the advice about avoiding them.
You say you want to use "standard libraries" without writing a  custom parser. But there is no standard library, there are lots of little URI-parsing hacks, and there are likely many heuristic libraries that do things you might not want (like case-folding or normalizing the authority name or turning // or /./ or /xx/../ into / because they worked mostly and it mostly doesn't matter. Which is OK in most cases.

Saying a data structure is "hierarchical" does not apply to one that is always a hierarchy of exactly two levels, without any applications that would use the hierarchical nature.

Your registry of payment names may need a dispute process -- what if two different payment processors both claim to "own" (and release incompatible additions to) a widely used payment type.

I think you might relook at Graham's advice to consider an application/payto+json MIME type and schema instead; you'll get parsers and validators and other goodies, easy integration and extensibility. MIME type are easy and a schema is easier. If you need to stuff it in a URI use data:.

A lot of work went into RFC 7595/BCP 35, and I wish you would take it more seriously, rather than try to lawyer through.

Larry
--
http://LarryMasinter.net