Discussion on the compatibility of different token standards

[paulyoung]

This sounds similar to:

Proposal to Adopt the Namespaced Interfaces Pattern as a Best Practice for IC Developers

by Austin Fatheree(@skilesare) with input from many others in the community. Special thanks to @wpb for laying the groundwork for healthy community debate. ICDevs.org is launching a new initiative to help coalesce a set of languages around the Internet Computer. These are not programming languages. The “Languages Project” is an attempt by ICDevs.org to contribute to the adoption of the Internet Computer by creating generative, form, and pattern language to the community that provides a common …

I think the suggestion to use a variant still has a lot of merit.

Proposal to Adopt the Namespaced Interfaces Pattern as a Best Practice for IC Developers

Maybe I’m missing something, but can’t we use variant type instead of namespaced-function names? In the transfer example, the proxy function can take variant { ext_nft: TransferRequest; departure_nft: (Principal, Text) }, then we can pattern match on the variant tag to call the corresponding service?