Hello everyone, I have just finished upgrading the two-cents-worth web site (I did it myself) and I found it very interesting. It becomes more and more obvious that we need a standard to make multi-currency implementation easier for developers and consequently less expensive for merchants to implement receipt of payments from DGC's.
I am proposing a consortium (DGC Consortium?) where the operators (and developers) of gold currencies can work together to help create this standard. This can be a simple and easy process, and should cost very little. Examples of simple things that could be addressed very easily: ************************ e-gold uses "mailto:"; in status_url to send e-mail confirmations, goldmoney uses "email:". I wonder why? Surely "mailto:"; is a more accepted usage? At the moment a developer must allow for different cases in a multicurrency environment. Pecunix will use "mailto:"; and I am suggesting this should be standardised. *********************** The e-gold and GoldMoney systems both use very interesting currency codes (phone codes?!). e-gold - AUD=61, GBP=44, goldgram=8888 etc. GoldMoney - AUD=36, GBP=826, goldgram=0 etc. This strikes me as being quite bizarre! Why aren't the currency codes as such: AUD=AUD, GBP=GBP, goldgram=AUG etc? Surely this makes more sense? *********************** How about a standard indicator for each recognised currency? e-gold = EG, GoldMoney = GM, Pecunix = PX, e-bullion = EB etc? *********************** Why should all the form fields be named differently for all the currencies? Goldmoney uses "OMI_SOME_NAME", e-gold uses "SOME_OTHER_NAME" etc. Perhaps a better solution is "GM_SOME_STANDARD_NAME", "EG_SOME_STANDARD_NAME" etc. and if the currency has unique fields (e-gold's PAYMENT_METAL_ID for example that will never be used in Goldmoney) they would use EG_UNIQUE_NAME. This would make implementation of multi currency apps very much simpler. *********************** Creating the hash could be standardised. Why use ":" as the delimiter in EG and "?" in GM... etc. *********************** Certainly there are probably MANY more SMALL things that could be done to make this all much easier for developers, and such a standard would also benefit the currencies, who would likely see much wider implementation of their currency. I would be pleased to hear from the management of the various systems and developers... would you support an idea like this? I am willing to set up and sponsor a web site where we can publish and discuss draft standards etc. I strongly believe that DGC's will succeed with or without standards for interaction and automation, but I hazard a guess that those who comply closely with others will ultimately find the path easier. Let's get this organised now, before we are too entrenched in our proprietary ways. Regards, Sidd. --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-tech as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
