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

[Larry Masinter <[e-mail]>]

  *   I am aware of the work done by the W3C's Web Payments Working Group, and
payto is orthogonal/complementary to these specifications.

The specs may be complementary but I think the drafts should coordinate; your messages pointed out the areas of overlap.

WebPayments is far along in implementation, testing and deployment.


There is nothing in these two existing specifications that would provide
or replace the intended usage of payto URIs, which is to uniformly
address destinations for payments (and optionally some parameters of the
payment such as the amount, sender's name or processing instructions)
across different payment systems.
There is nothing in these two existing specifications that would provide
or replace the intended usage of payto URIs, which is to uniformly
address destinations for payments (and optionally some parameters of the
payment such as the amount, sender's name or processing instructions)
across different payment systems.
There is nothing in these two existing specifications that would provide
or replace the intended usage of payto URIs, which is to uniformly
address destinations for payments (and optionally some parameters of the
payment such as the amount, sender's name or processing instructions)
across different payment systems.

https://www.thepaypers.com/cross-border-ecommerce has an interesting survey of payment methods around the world. Just sampling the Preferred Payment Methods and Payment Service Providers gives some indication of the complexity. Each payment processor has a complex API for invoking a payment of which the payto URI seems to want to supply some of the parameters?

Finally, I think it’s a mistake to use // or / in URIs that are not hierarchical, and to use //  / around something that isn’t a host name.

Larry
--
http://LarryMasinter.net