Francisco Giordano

@MarkP42 No, you're right. This PR needs to be edited so that the suggested check is added in a `_beforeTokenTransfer` hook as opposed to `_transfer`.

@robertmagier For the reasons explained above so far we've decided to keep the functions non-payable. Have you run into a situation where you need them to be payable? If so,...

I do understand your use cases and would like OpenZeppelin to cater to them, so I'm reopening the issue to keep the discussion going and to consider different options for...

Note that we have an implementation of EIP-2981 now: [ERC2981](https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts/blob/release-v4.5/contracts/token/common/ERC2981.sol) and [ERC721Royalty](https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts/blob/release-v4.5/contracts/token/ERC721/extensions/ERC721Royalty.sol) which is just a thin wrapper.

It seems that the EIP only standardizes an event, we have to figure out what it means for us to support it. Should we add an ERC721 flavor with batch...

@veqtor What is the issue with `tokenOfOwnerByIndex`?

Has any NFT marketplace/platform implemented support for EIP-2309? We have serious doubts about offering an implementation of this because we feel that an EIP-2309 token will not be well supported...

Because of the lack of support we don't plan to implement this EIP.

I'm not sure why there was such a big misunderstanding in this thread. @nxet's purpose could probably be accomplished with a custom implementation of ERC721URIStorage. For simple contracts like this,...

I don't think this ERC is a good candidate to be included given it's a Draft and the author [has no plans](https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/998#issuecomment-1012320451) to keep working on it.