NEP-17/NEP-11 needs update

[cschuchardt88]

The community and I had a discussion on discord. How NEP-17 is VERY unclear for symbol method.

Now NEP-17 states:

Returns a short string representing symbol of the token managed in this contract. e.g. "MYT". This string MUST be valid ASCII, MUST NOT contain whitespace or control characters, SHOULD be limited to uppercase Latin alphabet (i.e. the 26 letters used in English) and SHOULD be short (3-8 characters is recommended). This method MUST always return the same value every time it is invoked.

Now most people will interpret MUST SHOULD and NOT as they are defined in the English dictionary. The word that is mostly confusing is the word SHOULD. Should (English definition) is defined as:

used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions. "he should have been careful"

We all talked about if one particular entity is in violation of what symbol says. We have a value of FLP-bNEO-GM. One would say that this token is in violation of this rule. Others will argue that SHOULD means the same as recommended and some will say NEP-17 follows RFC2119. RFC2119 defines SHOULD as:

This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

Nowhere does it say that NEP follows RFC spec. However NEP-1 only states that the RFC 822 is to be for a particular part of NEP . So developers are making the assumption that it implies that NEP is in compliance with RFC rules.

We need clarification on how NEP-17's symbol should be interpreted for SHOULD. I suggest new proposals one for NEP-17-1 to correct this issue. What SHOULD means.

What does this mean:

SHOULD be short (3-8 characters is recommended)

be short (3-8 characters is recommended) is VERY unclear. What is be short even mean when you add in recommended. Is it short? Can I have 1MB string? Who knows?

I suggested that this entity create new proposal for LP (liquidity pool) tokens.

But it comes down to this repo. Everyone, including me thinks that this repo goes nowhere when it comes to suggesting new proposals.....

References: https://github.com/flamingo-finance/flamingo-contract-swap/issues/37 https://github.com/NeoNEXT/neoline/issues/131

Full Conversation https://discord.com/channels/382937847893590016/382937847893590019/1160257458594381844