CIP-30 Extension Naming

[Ryun1]

Although we live in a world where CIP-30 is the default Cardano wallet-web connector, this may not always be the case, thus explicitly tying CIP-30 extensions to CIP-30 maybe a mistake.

I propose that we include these proposal titles something like "Web-Wallet Bridge", so something like #509 would be named "Governance Web-Wallet Bridge". I am bad at naming, so just wanted to create an issue to start the conversation.

Thoughts?
@rphair @KtorZ @Crypto2099

[rphair]

I seconded this motion at the CIP meeting this week ✅ but would also suggest that Web-Wallet Bridge or equivalent precede the extension (e.g. Web-Wallet Bridge: Governance) so they all collate together when CIP names are sorted, and so names are taxonomic (beginning generally & ending specifically).

[Ryun1]

@rphair

Youre always good at naming! - Web-Wallet Bridge: xxxx sounds good to me 😎

[rphair]

@Ryun1 if nobody thinks these new names are out of place (so far the consensus looks in favour), perhaps we can declare this issue closed in meeting # 73 so I'll put it on the agenda.

[Ryun1]

@rphair I agree!

[Ryun1]

The only is that the colon (:) creates a YAML error when in the proposal header. Not sure if this actually a problem though, it may cause author's confusion.

Error in user YAML: (<unknown>): mapping values are not allowed in this context at line 2 column 25

See in rendered CIP-95.

@rphair

[rphair]

Aha. Colon = mapping syntax. Thanks; I've been trying to narrow that down for the longest time. 🥴

Typographically the best equivalent of a colon would be an em dash (—) but since we should stick to keyboard characters how about a minus sign? @Ryun1 @Crypto2099 @Scitz0

Web-Wallet Bridge - xxxx

[Ryun1]

In CIP editors call 73, we decided to move to use pipe ( | ) character. PR with information to follow.

[rphair]

Suggested update to CIP naming convention here (along with how we might update CIP-0030 in kind): #594