W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ietf-w3c@w3.org > September 2012

Re: web+ and registerProtocolHandler

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 10:08:29 +0200
Message-ID: <504D9FFD.8020209@gmx.de>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
CC: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, "michel@suignard.com" <michel@suignard.com>, "tony@att.com" <tony@att.com>, "plh@w3.org" <plh@w3.org>, "stpeter@stpeter.im" <stpeter@stpeter.im>, "adil@diwan.com" <adil@diwan.com>, "robin@berjon.com" <robin@berjon.com>, "ted.ietf@gmail.com" <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, John O'Conner <jooconne@adobe.com>, "presnick@qualcomm.com" <presnick@qualcomm.com>, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "chris@lookout.net" <chris@lookout.net>, "public-ietf-w3c@w3.org" <public-ietf-w3c@w3.org>
On 2012-09-10 10:01, Larry Masinter wrote:
> since this affects ietf and w3c, and public-ietf-w3c is publicly
> archived, could someone explain why allowing registering arbitrary
> web+xxx scheme handlers is any better than allowing arbitrary
> (unblacklisted) xxx scheme handlers?
> ...

I think the idea is that when the next "http" comes around, web sites 
will not be able to change the system default for it.

That being said, registering a system-wide URI handler needs admin 
privileges anyway, right? (at least on Windows).

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 10 September 2012 08:09:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:56:35 UTC