Based on conversations in #60, it's been suggested to move away from the NoData and WithData nomenclature currently used for the contracts.
The current thinking is NoData should be removed, so the contracts names are just ERC20 and ERC721, because they are minimum viable implementations of their respective contracts.
WithData could be changed to ERC20FireFly and ERC721FireFly, since these contain all of the extra "recommended" FireFly functionality like URI's and attached data. However, dropping WithData makes the difference between the contracts less obvious. Plus, the FireFly suffix makes it sounds as though they are supposed to be the contract of choice for using with FireFly
Based on conversations in #60, it's been suggested to move away from the
NoDataandWithDatanomenclature currently used for the contracts.The current thinking is
NoDatashould be removed, so the contracts names are justERC20andERC721, because they are minimum viable implementations of their respective contracts.WithDatacould be changed toERC20FireFlyandERC721FireFly, since these contain all of the extra "recommended" FireFly functionality like URI's and attached data. However, droppingWithDatamakes the difference between the contracts less obvious. Plus, theFireFlysuffix makes it sounds as though they are supposed to be the contract of choice for using with FireFly