JeffG 's avatar
JeffG _@jeffg.fyi 2 years ago
Why not use labels (nip-32) for the type value? That would give you the ability to be more specific (with ontologies etc) but also remain more flexible going forward. Overall I like the nip. I’ll try and add this label question directly to the nip shortly as well.
↑ Parent

Replies (3)

Kejtzi's avatar
Kejtzi _@nostr.gt 2 years ago
Interesting! What do you think about this label structure? ``` ["L", "tipopakto"] ["l", "Contract", "tipopakto"] ["l", "Agreement", "tipopakto"] ["l", "Covenant", "tipopakto"] ``` I've chosen to use "tipopakto" as a namespace, which translates from Esperanto to "type of pact." I find using Esperanto for primary namespaces to be more neutral, given its universal and non-nationalistic nature.
3 replies ↓
Default avatar
Burcgravius 2 years ago
Small correction, *pact type* in Esperanto would be *pakttipo* or *paktotipo.* Tipopakto would mean pact of types.
↑