Open CJ42 opened 1 year ago
how should we name the fields then if we introduce both fields in LSP4? Can we also use the term "profileImage" for LSP4?
Not sure if "profileImage"
really makes sense for describing collections/assets.
I think just adding the "backgroundImage"
field would work!
Just like profile pages, it's common for NFT collection pages to have a background image. We've already gotten feedback from early testers that individual NFT pages vs. Collection pages look too similar. By giving creators the option to provide a background image on the collection level we can use that to give the collection overview page a different look and feel.
After discussing with @frozeman the "images"
field contains an array, where images[0]
could be the background image of the collection.
After discussing with @frozeman the
"images"
field contains an array, whereimages[0]
could be the background image of the collection.
It is unclear how a dapp can identify whether an image is meant for a background. Also, not all collections may have a background image, making things messy and unclear. This is also why the profile metadata distinguishes between the background and profile image, right?
@CJ42 @frozeman Based on that argument the icon
can also be moved into the images
array.
images[0]
could be the background image of the collection.
@CJ42 @frozeman "Image 0 should be the main image"
As reported by @jakeprins , LSP3 Profile contains two fields for profile image and background image.
However LSP4 JSON metadata contains only 1 field
images
, and not a separate field for background image.Should we consider adding the background image field for LSP4 JSON Metadata as well?
Consideration: how should we name the fields then if we introduce both fields in LSP4? Can we also use the term
"profileImage"
for LSP4?