Resurrect EIP-831 and add "eth" shorhand #5335
Conversation
All tests passed; auto-merging...(pass) eip-831.md
|
|
The commit de43874 (as a parent of 2f6a18e) contains errors. Please inspect the Run Summary for details. |
Head branch was pushed to by a user without write access
|
The commit 1940ca7 (as a parent of e72e161) contains errors. Please inspect the Run Summary for details. |
|
The commit cfe895c (as a parent of 523b3dc) contains errors. Please inspect the Run Summary for details. |
|
The commit 71faf45 (as a parent of 7f67a4f) contains errors. Please inspect the Run Summary for details. |
|
The commit 7b7bd5d (as a parent of 8860895) contains errors. Please inspect the Run Summary for details. |
|
The commit 6afacde (as a parent of 21493e9) contains errors. Please inspect the Run Summary for details. |
|
The commit 48bcf7d (as a parent of fda1851) contains errors. Please inspect the Run Summary for details. |
EIPS/eip-831.md
Outdated
| `prefix` is optional and defines the use-case for this URI. If no prefix is given: "pay-" is assumed to be concise and ensure backward compatibility to ERC-67. When the prefix is omitted, the payload must start with `0x`. Also prefixes must not start with `0x`. So starting with `0x` can be used as a clear signal that there is no prefix. | ||
|
|
||
| `payload` is mandatory and the content depends on the prefix. Structuring of the content is defined in the ERC for the specific use-case and not in the scope of this document. One example is ERC-681 for the pay- prefix. | ||
| `prefix` is optional and defines the use-case for this URI. If no prefix is given: "pay-" is assumed to be concise and ensure backward compatibility to [EIP-67](https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/67). When the prefix is omitted, the payload must start with `0x`. Also prefixes must not start with `0x`. So starting with `0x` can be used as a clear signal that there is no prefix. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is no EIP-67, so you cannot link to EIP-67. Recommend just removing this comment about compatibility. You can't be backward incompatible with a thing that doesn't exist. 😄
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I really want to leave this in as it gives important context.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| `prefix` is optional and defines the use-case for this URI. If no prefix is given: "pay-" is assumed to be concise and ensure backward compatibility to [EIP-67](https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/67). When the prefix is omitted, the payload must start with `0x`. Also prefixes must not start with `0x`. So starting with `0x` can be used as a clear signal that there is no prefix. | |
| `prefix` is optional and defines the use-case for this URI. If no prefix is given: "pay-" is assumed to be concise and ensure backward compatibility with other standards. When the prefix is omitted, the payload must start with `0x`. Also prefixes must not start with `0x`. So starting with `0x` can be used as a clear signal that there is no prefix. |
Fixed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What other standards are being referred to by "with other standards"? If there are no standards then this feels like a vacuous statement.
Perhaps instead, "backward compatibility with existing contracts in the ecosystem" to make it clear that there are no existing standards but there does exist contracts in the wild that there is a desire to be compatible with?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What other standards are being referred to by "with other standards"? If there are no standards then this feels like a vacuous statement.
There are other standards out there that aren't EIPs, or even official standards. "EIP-223" (not an EIP) is a good example of this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
At best, that is a defacto standard which I personally wouldn't call a standard.
|
The commit aca98a5 (as a parent of 991305f) contains errors. Please inspect the Run Summary for details. |
|
The commit c81e2fa (as a parent of 5503035) contains errors. Please inspect the Run Summary for details. |
EIPS/eip-831.md
Outdated
| `prefix` is optional and defines the use-case for this URI. If no prefix is given: "pay-" is assumed to be concise and ensure backward compatibility to ERC-67. When the prefix is omitted, the payload must start with `0x`. Also prefixes must not start with `0x`. So starting with `0x` can be used as a clear signal that there is no prefix. | ||
|
|
||
| `payload` is mandatory and the content depends on the prefix. Structuring of the content is defined in the ERC for the specific use-case and not in the scope of this document. One example is ERC-681 for the pay- prefix. | ||
| `prefix` is optional and defines the use-case for this URI. If no prefix is given: "pay-" is assumed to be concise and ensure backward compatibility to a former URL format by @alexvandesande that was commonly used but never formalized and so cannot be mentioned by it's name without making the EIPW bot angry. When the prefix is omitted, the payload must start with `0x`. Also prefixes must not start with `0x`. So starting with `0x` can be used as a clear signal that there is no prefix. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Come on, the rules aren't that bad 🤣
You could try:
| `prefix` is optional and defines the use-case for this URI. If no prefix is given: "pay-" is assumed to be concise and ensure backward compatibility to a former URL format by @alexvandesande that was commonly used but never formalized and so cannot be mentioned by it's name without making the EIPW bot angry. When the prefix is omitted, the payload must start with `0x`. Also prefixes must not start with `0x`. So starting with `0x` can be used as a clear signal that there is no prefix. | |
| `prefix` is optional and defines the use-case for this URI. If no prefix is given: "pay-" is assumed to be concise and ensure backward compatibility with preexisting implementations (including a draft EIP by @alexvandesande). When the prefix is omitted, the payload must start with `0x`. Also prefixes must not start with `0x`. So starting with `0x` can be used as a clear signal that there is no prefix. |
If you want to keep this text literally, I suggest a small grammar edit:
| `prefix` is optional and defines the use-case for this URI. If no prefix is given: "pay-" is assumed to be concise and ensure backward compatibility to a former URL format by @alexvandesande that was commonly used but never formalized and so cannot be mentioned by it's name without making the EIPW bot angry. When the prefix is omitted, the payload must start with `0x`. Also prefixes must not start with `0x`. So starting with `0x` can be used as a clear signal that there is no prefix. | |
| `prefix` is optional and defines the use-case for this URI. If no prefix is given: "pay-" is assumed to be concise and ensure backward compatibility to a former URL format by @alexvandesande that was commonly used but never formalized and so cannot be mentioned by its name without making the EIPW bot angry. When the prefix is omitted, the payload must start with `0x`. Also prefixes must not start with `0x`. So starting with `0x` can be used as a clear signal that there is no prefix. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not personally a fan of name dropping like that. It doesn't add value to some future implementer who wants to implement this specification.
EIPS/eip-831.md
Outdated
| `prefix` is optional and defines the use-case for this URI. If no prefix is given: "pay-" is assumed to be concise and ensure backward compatibility to ERC-67. When the prefix is omitted, the payload must start with `0x`. Also prefixes must not start with `0x`. So starting with `0x` can be used as a clear signal that there is no prefix. | ||
|
|
||
| `payload` is mandatory and the content depends on the prefix. Structuring of the content is defined in the ERC for the specific use-case and not in the scope of this document. One example is ERC-681 for the pay- prefix. | ||
| `prefix` is optional and defines the use-case for this URI. If no prefix is given: "pay-" is assumed to be concise and ensure backward compatibility to a former URL format by @alexvandesande (#67) that was commonly used but never formalized and so cannot be mentioned by it's name without making the EIPW bot angry. When the prefix is omitted, the payload must start with `0x`. Also prefixes must not start with `0x`. So starting with `0x` can be used as a clear signal that there is no prefix. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| `prefix` is optional and defines the use-case for this URI. If no prefix is given: "pay-" is assumed to be concise and ensure backward compatibility to a former URL format by @alexvandesande (#67) that was commonly used but never formalized and so cannot be mentioned by it's name without making the EIPW bot angry. When the prefix is omitted, the payload must start with `0x`. Also prefixes must not start with `0x`. So starting with `0x` can be used as a clear signal that there is no prefix. | |
| `prefix` is optional and defines the use-case for this URI. If no prefix is given: "pay-" is assumed to be concise and ensure backward compatibility with a common pattern used on Ethereum mainnet prior to the introduction of this standard. When the prefix is omitted, the payload must start with `0x`. Also prefixes must not start with `0x`. So starting with `0x` can be used as a clear signal that there is no prefix. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks - but it was never used on "Ethereum mainnet" as this is used on another layer and not really on a network - and seems I can reference EIP-67 again soon as for: #5338
This kinda solves it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IF that gets approved by the author you can reference EIP-67. Note that this PR will be blocked from merging until then though, and be prepared for that to never happen as many EIP authors never respond. 😢
|
I removed the commits that tried to trick EIPW by not mentioning EIP-67 as @SamWilsn now submitted a PR toadd EIP-67 so we can reference it |
|
The commit 6afacde (as a parent of 0f01818) contains errors. Please inspect the Run Summary for details. |
|
Rebased to master so it picks up EIP-67 now - so from my side it would be good to go |
Co-authored-by: Micah Zoltu <micah@zoltu.net>
|
@ligi can you close / re-open this to get the renamed (:rage:) |
* Resurrect EIP-831 and add "eth" shorhand * Update EIPS/eip-831.md Co-authored-by: Micah Zoltu <micah@zoltu.net> Co-authored-by: Micah Zoltu <micah@zoltu.net>
This EIP was stagnant but used - was contacted by @3esmit to resurrect it and add a eth shorthand as alternative to the verbose "ethereum" scheme.
Resurrecting is a no-brainer - the shortcut could use some discussion as it might be problematic e.g. when registering the scheme - so this might need a check.
Let's discuss it here when there is time: https://github.com/ethereum-cat-herders/EIPIP/issues/159