So a couple of non-formatting related comments:
- In the motivation section, it might be nice to add something like this comment. Perhaps: interoperability with other standards already compatible with URIs, like SVG.
- Personally, I think the
web3
term is a bit too vague/broad for us to co-opt. Maybeevm://
, since we use Solidity’s ABI, or just maybe justeth
? - The return types are strictly client-side, so perhaps using the anchor notation for that
...#uint256,(string,bytes32)
? - In the example
web3://wusdt.eth:4->(uint256)/balanceOf/charles.eth
,balanceOf
doesn’t match the given grammar earlier in the proposal (as far as I could tell.) - How would you feel if the types were mandatory? Asking implementers to figure out how to retrieve ABI definitions might be a bit heavy.