New CAIP - Block Addressing model #220
Conversation
bumblefudge
changed the title
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| block_address: chain_id + ":block/" + account_address + ["." + property]? | ||
| chain_id: [-a-z0-9]{3,8}:[-_a-zA-Z0-9]{1,32} (See [CAIP-2][]) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need to repeat the definition of chain_id in all documents that use it? Wouldn't just linking to it be enough? I see that otherwise managing all occurrences might be hell.
| ``` | ||
| block_address: chain_id + ":block/" + account_address + ["." + property]? | ||
| chain_id: [-a-z0-9]{3,8}:[-_a-zA-Z0-9]{1,32} (See [CAIP-2][]) | ||
| block_height: [-%a-zA-Z0-9]{1,128} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess this has been superseded by the property field?
| Blocks are addressed as follows: | ||
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| block_address: chain_id + ":block/" + account_address + ["." + property]? |
| block_address: chain_id + ":block/" + account_address + ["." + property]? | ||
| chain_id: [-a-z0-9]{3,8}:[-_a-zA-Z0-9]{1,32} (See [CAIP-2][]) | ||
| block_height: [-%a-zA-Z0-9]{1,128} | ||
| property (optional): (hash|height|time|nonce|prev|txncount|data) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we care about aliasing? For some chains, hash and height can be used interchangeably. So we would have to different identifiers for the same resource.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i think the semantics of this enum, and more importantly the valid SUBSET of it, would be defined per-namespace in profiles, right? that's a really good shout-out, i should update the normative text to make this more explicit.
Co-authored-by: Antonio <[email protected]>
No description provided.