-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
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
Remove deedName(), change visibility of ownerOf() and countOfDeeds() #1
Conversation
deedName() data should be optional as not all deeds will have distinct names, even when ERC721Metadata is inherited. Collection name and symbol are important information, everything about a specific deed should be optional and returned from deedURI data.
ownerOf() and countOfDeeds() are both needed to be called internally in the implementation and as such should be public instead of external
ownerOf() and countOfDeeds() are both needed to be called internally in the implementation and as such should be public instead of external |
Regarding external / public for interfaces. I am currently working with the Solidity team to nail down best practices. Read more here: ethereum/solidity#3458 See also ethereum/solidity#3038 So I think our code is already correct, it is solidity that is wrong. Also see caveats section in 841. |
Regarding deedName. "" is a valid string. The function is required. This is a cop-out way to meet the requirement without doing anything useful. So basically optional. But I agree with you, this shouldn't even be optional. It should be out of the spec. DeedUri is preferred. But right now I do not want to make any changes to the metadata section. It is listed as an open item. But there is definitely contention on this item. My plan is to get on the phone with somebody that will be the consumer of this standard. If I can convince them on the phone that DeedURI is good and DeedName is bad that will be great. And if I can get MetaMask on the record here saying they will support this standard with DeedURL and not DeedName then my work is done. Until then, I want to keep this open for discussion. |
That interface visibility discussion is quite interesting, thanks for linking it. I had no idea they were functionally identical ABIs, so I guess it doesn't really matter what visibility I use when implementing, good to know! |
Also, for real, 10+ issues submitted to Solidity studying 721. There really is a lot of studying. I am still working hard here to keep it moving. |
* Proposed EIP for address and ERC20 transfer rules * Update eip-X.md Updating creation date * Update eip-X.md (#1) * Update eip-X.md * Update eip-X.md * Update eip-X.md Rule -> IRule consistently fix missing links improve abstract * Update eip-X.md typos small improvements adds implementation section
deedName() data should be removed entirely or considered optional as not all deeds will have distinct names, even when ERC721Metadata is inherited. Collection name and symbol are important information, but everything about a specific deed should be optional and returned from deedURI data.
This function seems like an unnecessary and potentially confusing overlap/double-up of data that can already be part of deedUri() return data.