- From: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
- Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 13:59:02 -0700
Do any browser vendors agree with this or have objections? Hixie, this seem OK to you? These additions seem safe, simple and enable sites giving users a better experience. On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:32 PM, James Kozianski <koz at chromium.org> wrote: > Hi, > > I'd like to propose the following changes to the registerProtocolHandler > spec. > > 1. Introduce an isRegistered() function. > > Currently if a site wants its users to register it as a handler for a given > protocol it has two options: > > a) It can call registerProtocolHandler() on page load. (This approach > was suggested in [1]) > > b) It can have a button that the user clicks (or similar) to enact the > registration. > > > The former is problematic because the call to registerProtocolHandler will > cause the browser's UI to notify them of the registration (or prompt them > to > make a decision), which is redundant if it occurs on every page load. > > > The latter is problematic because it puts the onus on each site developer > to > provide the UI to allow the user to make the change. Also, as the site > doesn't know whether the user has already registered the given protocol > handler, it can't tailor its UI to reflect this. This means the UI either > always shows, or never shows, both of which are undesirable. > > > Having an isRegistered() function would allow a site to simply make the RPH > call conditionally on load, or to provide a UI for it that reflects the > user's current preference. > > > 2. Introduce an unregisterProtocolHandler() function. > > Such a function is desirable because it allows sites to remove outdated > handlers from clients and would enable clients to provide a UI for managing > their registered protocol handlers. > > > 3. Require all URL arguments to have the same origin as the page executing > the call. > > This would would make the behaviour of this set of functions more > consistent > (isRegistered() should only work for same-domain queries, to prevent > information leaking). > > > Cheers, > James > > [1] - http://www.mail-archive.com/whatwg at lists.whatwg.org/msg14548.html >
Received on Friday, 1 July 2011 13:59:02 UTC