W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > April 2006

[whatwg] Registering protocol handlers

From: Peter Hall <peterjoel@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:24:12 -0400
Message-ID: <9ac110a90604241724v64812bb2r6672978f93efe840@mail.gmail.com>
I meant a typo in the content type, not the URI.

Perhaps there is no really good use case. But it feels right that, if you do
something, there should be a way to undo it. I certainly can't see a reason
why the ability to unregister would be detrimental or dangerous

Peter


On 4/24/06, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Peter Hall wrote:
> > >
> > > Why would, e.g., Flickr, ever unregister itself as an image/x-flickr
> > > handler? (The only theoretical case I can see, namely the site
> > > changing its server location, seems like a bad reason -- you should
> > > always support the old location, good URIs don't change.)
> >
> > Perhaps a developer at Flickr made a typo...?
>
> Sure, but in that case a simple redirect would work fine. It would be
> better to do that than to require users to unregister one handler and
> register another, especially given the number of prompts, etc, that would
> probably be involved.
>
> --
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20060424/dfceb38e/attachment.htm>
Received on Monday, 24 April 2006 17:24:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:46 UTC