ERC-721 vs ERC-6220

Non-Fungible Token Standard compared with Composable NFTs utilizing Equippable Parts.

Overlapping, neither contains the other

1 shared · 10 vs 20 functions · 10% of the smaller surface

ERC-6220 lists ERC-721 in its requires field but declares no inheritance in its interface, so any surface it inherits is not counted here.

🤝 Shared (1)

0x01ffc9a7 supportsInterface(bytes4)

`0x095ea7b3`	`approve(address,uint256)`
`0x70a08231`	`balanceOf(address)`
`0x081812fc`	`getApproved(uint256)`
`0xe985e9c5`	`isApprovedForAll(address,address)`
`0x6352211e`	`ownerOf(uint256)`
`0xb88d4fde`	`safeTransferFrom(address,address,uint256,bytes)`
`0x42842e0e`	`safeTransferFrom(address,address,uint256)`
`0xa22cb465`	`setApprovalForAll(address,bool)`
`0x23b872dd`	`transferFrom(address,address,uint256)`

`0xfc3517c8`	`acceptAsset(uint256,uint256,uint64)`
`0x5ea72f36`	`approveForAssets(address,uint256)`
`0x074334fb`	`canTokenBeEquippedWithAssetIntoSlot(address,uint256,uint64,uint64)`
`0x38dcf74c`	`equip((uint256,uint256,uint64,uint64,uint64))`
`0x5e94354a`	`getActiveAssetPriorities(uint256)`
`0x7280281e`	`getActiveAssets(uint256)`
`0xe467a48f`	`getApprovedForAssets(uint256)`
`0x4e60edba`	`getAssetAndEquippableData(uint256,uint64)`
`0x5e2e3292`	`getAssetMetadata(uint256,uint64)`
`0xdf6f556b`	`getAssetReplacements(uint256,uint64)`
`0x7507e2ae`	`getEquipment(uint256,address,uint64)`
`0x51532e5a`	`getPendingAssets(uint256)`
`0x22e6d160`	`isApprovedForAllForAssets(address,address)`
`0xee1dffcf`	`isChildEquipped(uint256,address,uint256)`
`0xe7de4de4`	`rejectAllAssets(uint256,uint256)`
`0x22f6da9c`	`rejectAsset(uint256,uint256,uint64)`
`0x8507dc28`	`setApprovalForAllForAssets(address,bool)`
`0xde8e602c`	`setPriority(uint256,uint64[])`
`0xc259a988`	`unequip(uint256,uint64,uint64)`

Both surfaces parsed from the canonical specifications: ERC-721 · ERC-6220