We discussed having at every level an optional "extensions" ability to add arbitrary information that was not yet codified in the schema. These extensions may be used to specify additional information required by a particular Gateway. As a result, it would seem that the extensions should adopt a common namespacing strategy to avoid conflicts.
Perhaps when documenting how these extensions work you could give guidance as to a best practice for namespacing those extensions (a naming convention, or other).
ericfranz
commented
3 years ago
We discussed having at every level an optional "extensions" ability to add arbitrary information that was not yet codified in the schema. These extensions may be used to specify additional information required by a particular Gateway. As a result, it would seem that the extensions should adopt a common namespacing strategy to avoid conflicts.
Perhaps when documenting how these extensions work you could give guidance as to a best practice for namespacing those extensions (a naming convention, or other).