@jefflau.eth Something else I noticed in the new contracts, there’s now a hard cap of 255 bytes for all labels:
if (bytes(label).length > 255) {
revert LabelTooLong(label);
}
This means that nobody would be able to:
- Register any new .eth 2LDs that have a >255 byte label
- Wrap any existing .eth 2LDs that have a >255 byte label
- Create any new subnames (under a wrapped name) that have a >255 byte label
Is this new behavior intentional?
It looks like the encoded name is just used to populate the names mapping, and to emit in the NameWrapped event. If on-chain storage is the concern, couldn’t the contract just refrain from populating the names mapping if it’s >255 bytes, rather than reverting the transaction? Or are there other reasons why we should have a hard cap now?