feat: Add Wallet Assets

[DavideSegullo]

It would be useful to have the assets associated with the wallets, for example, their logo, as is done in chain-registry

[JeremyParish69]

This is fantastic work. My suggestion would be to remove logo_URIs, and only keep images

[DavideSegullo]

This is fantastic work. My suggestion would be to remove logo_URIs, and only keep images

Yes it is a very good idea, we can compact it into the images field, how about if we also add an additional information to indicate the type of image though? For example "logo", "banner", "logotype" and "logomark", what do you think?

[JeremyParish69]

Yes it is a very good idea, we can compact it into the images field, how about if we also add an additional information to indicate the type of image though? For example "logo", "banner", "logotype" and "logomark", what do you think?

Yes, I like this. But there are so many different ways a logo can be presented, so I'd like to define what each of these mean.

E.g., I have a CMS that allows for 6 different logo images for each project: 3 color varieties (light mode, dark mode, and all white) of logo_asset (which, I think is same as what you call logomark), and 3 color varieties of logotype (which is the logo asset + text). Also, whenever there are multiple variants of the logotype, I opt for the one that has the text to the right of the logo asset, and omit the one with text below the logo asset. If allowing for both varieties of a single logo, we should allow for a way to specify which is which.

[DavideSegullo]

Yes it is a very good idea, we can compact it into the images field, how about if we also add an additional information to indicate the type of image though? For example "logo", "banner", "logotype" and "logomark", what do you think?

Yes, I like this. But there are so many different ways a logo can be presented, so I'd like to define what each of these mean.

E.g., I have a CMS that allows for 6 different logo images for each project: 3 color varieties (light mode, dark mode, and all white) of logo_asset (which, I think is same as what you call logomark), and 3 color varieties of logotype (which is the logo asset + text). Also, whenever there are multiple variants of the logotype, I opt for the one that has the text to the right of the logo asset, and omit the one with text below the logo asset. If allowing for both varieties of a single logo, we should allow for a way to specify which is which.

Yes, I agree, about the image's categories:

1. Logo, I mean logo "icon" + text
2. Logo type, I mean only text
3. Logo mark, I mean only logo "icon"

If we wanna handle text direction, we can add a property "direction", that can be helpful for accessibility if someone need to use it for rtl

[JeremyParish69]

Yes, I agree, about the image's categories:

1. Logo, I mean logo "icon" + text
2. Logo type, I mean only text
3. Logo mark, I mean only logo "icon"

If we wanna handle text direction, we can add a property "direction", that can be helpful for accessibility if someone need to use it for rtl

I see. My logotype definition was icon + text, so I hope I don't cause confusion there. I generally like your definitions.

On direction, all I meant was where the text is positioned relative to the icon(--not how it's read; ltr vs rtl).

[JeremyParish69]

could have something like this within the schema within an image object? I think we'll be able to make use of the same definitions for the Chain Registry.

"logo_layout": {
  "type": "string",
  "enum": [
    "logo",
    "logomark",
    "logotype"
  ],
  "description": "logomark == icon only; logotype == text only; logo == icon + text."
}

[DavideSegullo]

"logo_layout": { "type": "string", "enum": [ "logo", "logomark", "logotype" ], "description": "logomark == icon only; logotype == text only; logo == icon + text." }

Yes, we add the following one inside the 'images' array:

{
  "layout": {
    "type": "string",
    "enum": [
      "logo",
      "logomark",
      "logotype"
    ],
    "description": "logomark == icon only; logotype == text only; logo == icon + text."
  },
  "text_position": {
    "type": "string",
    "enum": [
      "top",
      "bottom",
      "left",
      "right"
    ],
    "description": "Indicates in which position the text is placed, in case the layout is 'icon' type, it's required only in this case."
  },
}

I only changed the field name from "logo_layout" to "layout", just to be generic, right now we're using it for logo but maybe in the future we wanna use it for other use cases.

Just to avoid confusion (maybe a 'direction' field can be tricky), we can create a "text_position" field, that can be use for "logo" layout and it's required only in this use case.

[JeremyParish69]

Yes, we add the following one inside the 'images' array:

{
  "layout": {
    "type": "string",
    "enum": [
      "logo",
      "logomark",
      "logotype"
    ],
    "description": "logomark == icon only; logotype == text only; logo == icon + text."
  },
  "text_position": {
    "type": "string",
    "enum": [
      "top",
      "bottom",
      "left",
      "right"
    ],
    "description": "Indicates in which position the text is placed, in case the layout is 'icon' type, it's required only in this case."
  },
}

I only changed the field name from "logo_layout" to "layout", just to be generic, right now we're using it for logo but maybe in the future we wanna use it for other use cases.

Just to avoid confusion (maybe a 'direction' field can be tricky), we can create a "text_position" field, that can be use for "logo" layout and it's required only in this use case.

I think the text_position is a bit overkill, but I also really like. I'm happy with what you've suggested and would like to implement the same into the Chain Registry to help implement this as a standard.

[DavideSegullo]

Yes, we add the following one inside the 'images' array:

{
  "layout": {
    "type": "string",
    "enum": [
      "logo",
      "logomark",
      "logotype"
    ],
    "description": "logomark == icon only; logotype == text only; logo == icon + text."
  },
  "text_position": {
    "type": "string",
    "enum": [
      "top",
      "bottom",
      "left",
      "right"
    ],
    "description": "Indicates in which position the text is placed, in case the layout is 'icon' type, it's required only in this case."
  },
}

I only changed the field name from "logo_layout" to "layout", just to be generic, right now we're using it for logo but maybe in the future we wanna use it for other use cases. Just to avoid confusion (maybe a 'direction' field can be tricky), we can create a "text_position" field, that can be use for "logo" layout and it's required only in this use case.

I think the text_position is a bit overkill, but I also really like. I'm happy with what you've suggested and would like to implement the same into the Chain Registry to help implement this as a standard.

Thank you! I'll update the schema

[DavideSegullo]

@JeremyParish69 Done