search

capsule-corp-ternoa / ternoa-proposals

6 stars 2 forks source link

Should extensions be reflected in the basic NFT data? #1

Closed peshwar9 closed 2 years ago

peshwar9 commented 2 years ago

Hi @markopoloparadox : Great work with the inital specs for Basic NFT. I have a question on why royalty and Soulbound are a part of the basic NFT creation fields, when they are also mentioned as extensions. eg. Royalty is not reflected in basic NFT but it is fine as it is mentioned as an extension.

markopoloparadox commented 2 years ago

@peshwar9 It's because the interface create_nft contains those fields. If I remove them then we will get something that doesn't exist on our chain. image

What I will do is I will mention in the extensions TS files that certain parts are available in the create_nft interface so that I don't repeat myself.

peshwar9 commented 2 years ago

@markopoloparadox : Another approach could be that the basic nft specification can be changed to exclude the extension-related fields. But you can mention in README that Ternoa Basic NFT has implemented the Base specs + all the extensions. Other dApps or chains that wish to adopt this standard can choose to ignore the extensions in the implementation, or only implement some of the extensions.

markopoloparadox commented 2 years ago

@peshwar9 Sure, I will do that. Those interfaces are just another way to represent our on-chain extrinsics and as per our last google meet discussion we cannot have them standardized, yet.