7 ms·
One of the comments there makes a good point - they should really register `moz://` as a protocol, otherwise someone will grab that at some point and cause endl
by DangerousPie 10y ago
One of the comments there makes a good point - they should really register `moz://` as a protocol, otherwise someone will grab that at some point and cause endless confusion.
On the other hand, "we used this for branding" is really not a great justification for registering a new protocol, is it...
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- xg15 10y agoIt may not be the best reason, but aren't there already dozens of highly product-specific schemes in use? (such as steam:, unreal:, chrome: in Firefox, chrome: in Chrome - with completely different semantics -, view-source: etc etc)
- Someone1234 10y agoAre any of those registered with the IANA?
- XaspR8d 10y agoYep, though most of them are "provisional", which means it isn't a formal or permanent definition. Here's the full list: https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/uri-schemes.xhtml https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/uri-schemes.xht...
- xg15 10y agoThank you for the link. I wouldn't have believes there are that many URI schemes in existence though...
- jlgaddis 10y agoThey (Richard Barnes) did, according to the comments.
- ComodoHacker 10y agoIt's not any worse than registering google. TLD to be used for branding.
- toyg 10y agoThey registered it. That doesn't mean other browsers will implement it. In fact, if I were on Chrome or IE, I'd make sure "moz://a" either redirects to my own feature-page or leave it as it is (i.e. google search leading to shady SEO business moz.com).