W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > July 2011

[whatwg] Proposal to extend registerProtocolHandler

From: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 15:03:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CANMdWTvPV0k83RrEb++GbnfdHZvcnME7v1Px8m-wmoPzoyYmMQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay at helsinki.fi> wrote:

> On 07/02/2011 12:25 AM, Michael Davidson wrote:
>>  From my perspective on Gmail, I would prefer to know if the user hasn't
>> registered because they declined previously or haven't been asked. If
>> they've declined previously, then calling registerProtocolHandler() in
>> today's UAs will not do anything. If I can't detect that state, then
>> they'll
>> keep clicking and I'll keep calling and they'll get frustrated.
>> I'd prefer if isRegistered() was something like registeredState() and
>> returned REGISTERED, DECLINED, or NOTASKED. Then I could make a UI that
>> really reflects reality.
> Shouldn't there be also something like "NOTANSWERED", if user hasn't yet
> decided whether to accept registering or not.

I'm not opposed to this for completeness sake. I expect all sites would just
ask again in this case.

> Though, I wonder if there is some privacy issue related to
> isRegistered/registeredState()**. Or there is - web app can
> know whether it is being used as the default protocol handler
> for some protocol, say mailto: with GMail.
> But is the privacy issue bad enough to worry about?

I'm not sure what the privacy issue here is given that we restrict to
same-domain. You're already using the site, so it's just whether they can
tell that you use them as a protocol handler. I don't see a problem with
exposing that.

> Safer option would be if registeredState() would just return
> -Olli
Received on Friday, 1 July 2011 15:03:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:34 UTC