Skip to content
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

ISO 4217 note commentary #949

Closed
aphillips opened this issue Mar 31, 2021 · 6 comments
Closed

ISO 4217 note commentary #949

aphillips opened this issue Mar 31, 2021 · 6 comments
Labels
i18n-needs-resolution Issue the Internationalization Group has raised and looks for a response on.

Comments

@aphillips
Copy link

  1. PaymentCurrencyAmount dictionary
    https://www.w3.org/TR/2020/CR-payment-request-20201203/#paymentcurrencyamount-dictionary

Efforts are underway at ISO to account for digital currencies, which may result in an update to the [ISO4217] registry or an entirely new registry. The community expects this will resolve ambiguities that have crept in through the use of non-standard 3-letter codes; for example, does "BTC" refer to Bitcoin or to a future Bhutan currency? At the time of publication, it remains unclear what form this evolution will take, or even the time frame in which the work will be completed. The W3C Web Payments Working Group is liaising with ISO so that, in the future, revisions to this specification remain compatible with relevant ISO registries.

I18N discussed this in our teleconference of 2021-03-25. Generally, we think that Web Payments's liaison with 4217's RA is the right course of action. The only callout here is that this note might encourage implementers to consider non-standard/private-use "de facto" currency codes in the interim (before non-governmental currencies get addressed) where this might harm interoperability vs. having a solid standard.

@aphillips aphillips added the i18n-needs-resolution Issue the Internationalization Group has raised and looks for a response on. label Mar 31, 2021
@ianbjacobs
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi @aphillips,

@marcoscaceres and I feel the specification here is not encouraging any particular behavior, only citing the problem.

Is there a concrete change you would suggest? Thank you,
Ian

@aphillips
Copy link
Author

I suppose I could suggest that some text be added discouraging implementers from "going off the ranch" and implementing non-standard workarounds... but I think that's probably overkill. I think you can resolve this comment.

@ianbjacobs
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks @aphillips!

@ianbjacobs
Copy link
Collaborator

@aphillips or @r12a, do I remove the "i18n-needs-resolution" label or do you do that (based on Addison's response earlier today)?

@aphillips
Copy link
Author

No, do not remove the label: PLH's tools use it to track resolution (and so do we). You can otherwise treat this as a normal issue (closing it when done, for example). See: https://www.w3.org/Guide/documentreview/#working_with_horizontal_review_labels

We track your progress in our repo (in this case, in i18n-activity#1045) and will resolve our issue. When you reach CR, if all of our issues are closed you'll have a clean bill of health. If any of our issues are open at that time which you feel are resolved, please do ping.

Thanks!!

@marcoscaceres
Copy link
Member

closing as resolved.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
i18n-needs-resolution Issue the Internationalization Group has raised and looks for a response on.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants