Perhaps we
should just remove it, but then clients which don't know
the URI scheme
won't be able to show the amount to the user, which sucks.
If a client can't display the amount because it doesn't understand the
scheme, it's better to tell the user that explicitly ("Unknown payment
scheme.") rather than some vague warning that the value might not be
accurate, while still displaying the amount as if it's correct. And
where the client does understand the scheme, that value is redundant
and should be ignored by the client anyway.
Also, if we removed "display-amount",
there's still a "label" field
which could lie about the actual
payment amount.
If we're going to have one potentially misleading value, let's go the
whole way and have multiple? No.
It's possible the label could mention an amount, but it won't be
displayed in the same way as the explicitly unknown transaction
amount, and the sender would have to expect the recipient doesn't have
support for the scheme, otherwise the mismatch will be clear.
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list --standards(a)xmpp.org
To unsubscribe send an email tostandards-leave(a)xmpp.org