-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 216
feat: added examples, added IANA requirement, fixed spelling issues #392
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
base: caip317/uri-scheme-caip
Are you sure you want to change the base?
feat: added examples, added IANA requirement, fixed spelling issues #392
Conversation
|
Hey! This is awesome, thanks for iterating the old draft (and implicitly championing it). If you have some thoughts on use-cases that might help. For me, the one open question preventing me from taking this to IANA is which current and future CAIPs MUST or CAN a parser of these URIs know how to parse. All CAIPs that define an identifier? Only heirarchical CAIPs? Do they have to be "final" status? For example, dropping CAIP-21 and -22 makes perfect sense, as they've been superseded. CAIP-20 there are many arguments for dropping (no one, AFAIK, uses CAIP-20 in prod! the MetaMask Snaps team has even expressed interest in superceding it with some other way of canonicalizing native/gas tokens). But, devil's advocate, it's also an heirarchical identifier syntactically equivalent to CAIP-19, and the CAIP defining it is at the same status... so it gets a little squishy. I wouldn't say these questions are blocking this being accepted as a Draft and soliciting further feedback, but I DO think looking at use-cases and how this could get adopted in prod could be informed by these options (leaving it open-ended to future CAIPs, or never finalizing this CAIP and adding new forms of identifier one by one, or writing new CAIPs over time if additional URI shapes get added). |
| ``` | ||
| # Ethereum Mainnet | ||
| caip:eip155:1 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Aren't these URNs, not URIs? URIs would be caip://eip155:1, non?
| caip:eip155:1/slip44:60 | ||
|
|
||
| # Bitcoin (native token via SLIP-44) | ||
| caip:bip122:000000000019d6689c085ae165831e93/slip44:0 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this one is CAIP-20 😄
| Care should be taken to add the `caip:` prefix when merging such lists or datasets into more general-purpose systems or URI-aware contexts. | ||
| When migrating to URI-based systems: | ||
| - Add the `caip:` prefix when exporting identifiers to external systems |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
caip://?
I don't think 20, 21, 22, are required for this CAIP to go through. But I could be wrong. Let me know what you all think. I have also applied to register caip with IANA with this PR.