So the EIP-721 standard says,
Creating of NFTs ("minting") and destruction NFTs ("burning") is not included in the specification. Your contract may implement these by other means.
interface ERC721 /* is ERC165 */ { event Transfer(address indexed _from, address indexed _to, uint256 indexed _tokenId); event Approval(address indexed _owner, address indexed _approved, uint256 indexed _tokenId); event ApprovalForAll(address indexed _owner, address indexed _operator, bool _approved); function balanceOf(address _owner) external view returns (uint256); function ownerOf(uint256 _tokenId) external view returns (address); function safeTransferFrom(address _from, address _to, uint256 _tokenId, bytes data) external payable; function safeTransferFrom(address _from, address _to, uint256 _tokenId) external payable; function transferFrom(address _from, address _to, uint256 _tokenId) external payable; function approve(address _approved, uint256 _tokenId) external payable; function setApprovalForAll(address _operator, bool _approved) external; function getApproved(uint256 _tokenId) external view returns (address); function isApprovedForAll(address _owner, address _operator) external view returns (bool); } I get what it says, but I think it would have been better that function mint was included in the standard in the first place since almost every erc721 contract uses below format?
function mint(address _to, uint256 _tokenId); Any valid reason that mint was ommited from the standard?