status-im
/
EIPs
mirror of https://github.com/status-im/EIPs.git
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Add references

This commit is contained in:
ligi 2018-01-25 14:21:27 +01:00
parent e790f96e38
commit afabcb5f46
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 8E81894010ABF23D
1 changed files with 4 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

4
EIPS/eip-831.md
View File

@ -37,6 +37,10 @@ Ethereum URLs contain "ethereum" in their schema (protocol) part and are constru
The need for this ERC emerged when refining ERC-681. We need a container that does not carry the weight of the use-cases. ERC-67 was the first attempt on defining Ethereum-URLs. This ERC tries to keep backward compatibility and not break existing things. This means ERC-67 URLs should still be valid and readable. Only if the prefix feature is used, ERC-67 parsers might break. No way was seen to avoid this and innovate on the same time. This is also the reason this open prefix approach was chosen to being able to adopt to future use-cases and not block the whole "ethereum:" scheme for a limited set of use-cases that existed at the time of writing this. The need for this ERC emerged when refining ERC-681. We need a container that does not carry the weight of the use-cases. ERC-67 was the first attempt on defining Ethereum-URLs. This ERC tries to keep backward compatibility and not break existing things. This means ERC-67 URLs should still be valid and readable. Only if the prefix feature is used, ERC-67 parsers might break. No way was seen to avoid this and innovate on the same time. This is also the reason this open prefix approach was chosen to being able to adopt to future use-cases and not block the whole "ethereum:" scheme for a limited set of use-cases that existed at the time of writing this.
## References
1. ERC-67, https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/67
2. ERC-681, https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/681
## Copyright ## Copyright