6 ms·

Bitcoin URL scheme whitelisted in HTML5

182 points by bpierre 14y ago

hippich 14y ago
how i can see name of user who committed this?
- unfletch 14y ago
  The name is always "Ian Hickson". He's the only committer on the HTML5 SVN repo: $ svn log -q | egrep "^r\d+" | cut -d "|" -f 2 | sort | uniq -c 7850 ianh
- bpierre 14y ago
  In the commit-watchers mailing list: http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/commit-watchers-whatwg.org/2013/006999.html http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/commit-watchers-whatwg.org...
- eric_bullington 14y ago
  Looks like Mike Hearn, googler and core Bitcoin developer.
betterunix 14y ago
This screams bad idea to me...
- MichaelApproved 14y ago
  Care to elaborate?
  - alptrv 14y ago
    Maybe because there are many other currencies besides bitcoin, what about ripple, litecoin, etc? Would they alter the standart every time to add one of them?
    - icebraining 14y ago
      If those currencies gain traction comparable to Bitcoin, why not? The standard is being changed every day anyway.
    - drdaeman 14y ago
      I believe they can use "web+litecoin" in the meanwhile. When they'll get enough traction, they may get their designated "top-level" scheme. Same as with MIME types: application/vnd.org.example.foobar for anyone, application/foobar when you're famous.
msutherl 14y ago
Everyone who maintains the HTML5 spec. is named Mike.
- return13 14y ago
  ++
- notatoad 14y ago
  it's a diff of an alphabetical list, it's showing a few lines on either side of the name that was added. So all the HTML5 spec contributors whose names start with the letters "mike" are called Mike.
- fchollet 14y ago
  What about Mikko?
- lmm 14y ago
  I remember speculation that "Satoshi" was someone also named Mike. Coincidence?
FireBeyond 14y ago
Seems like a horrible and arbitrary idea. What is it meant to achieve? Send a bitcoin to an address? View a block? HTML5 started off well, but is beginning to morph into a cargo cult of 'cool': the return of mystery navigation, "swipe to navigate", many others.
- gbaygon 14y ago
  According to the link in the comment: "The purpose of this URI scheme is to enable users to easily make payments by simply clicking links on webpages or scanning QR Codes." Source: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0021 https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0021
- drewblaisdell 14y ago
  You have given reasons that support the idea that this is arbitrary, but why is it horrible?
  - justincormack 14y ago
    Are we going to have to whitelist every currency that will exist in the future? At least have a pay: schema so you do pay:bitcoin.com/... or something.
    - SkyMarshal 14y ago
      Exactly. Needs another layer of abstraction to handle competing crypto currencies. BTC was the first, but won't be the last.
      - pjscott 14y ago
        Something analogous to the way magnet URIs are used as an extensible scheme for peer-to-peer filesharing links? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet_URI_scheme http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet_URI_scheme
        14y ago
Houshalter 14y ago
What does this mean exactly?
- chrisfarms 14y ago
  It is referring to the registerProtocolHandler function. The function allows you to register handlers for custom schemes, so that you can do clever things with links like <a href="awesome://example.com">awesome</a>. The "web+something" namespace is what we should be using for our custom scheme handlers, but there are a bunch of other web-related schemes that will be fine to use too... "bitcoin" is one of the OK ones. It's not a big deal as far as I can see... basically any scheme that is popular enough or documented enough and isn't supposed to launch some external application could probably get white-listed if you asked nicely.
itsybitsycoder 14y ago
OK, if I understand correctly this is the WHATWG HTML5, not the W3C HTML5. Are there any browsers actually using WHATWG's spec?
- bpierre 14y ago
  Yes, all of them! :-) WhatWG HTML is the living standard, and the HTML5 (W3C) spec. is like a snapshot. http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#What_is_HTML5.3F http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#What_is_HTML5.3F
  - itsybitsycoder 14y ago
    No, it's not that simple. http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#WHATWG_and_the_W3C_HTML_WG http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#WHATWG_and_the_W3C_HTML_WG
    - bpierre 14y ago
      Yeah, nothing is simple, but it’s still true most of the time. Feel free to explain better :-)
      - itsybitsycoder 14y ago
        Basically, the WHATWG and W3C specs have diverged and there is no clear plan for them to meet up again. So, just because WHATWTG has added bitcoin links to their HTML5 spec does not mean that W3C will add bitcoin links to theirs. W3C is generally considered the more respected/"official" spec out of the two. (I would not be surprised if most people who've heard of the W3C have not heard of WHATWG.) I know that browser developers care about being W3C-compliant. I'm not sure whether they care about being WHATWG-compliant.
        bpierre 14y ago
        Browser developers care about being “WhatWG compliant”, because the WhatWG HTML group is composed by browser editors, they work with the W3C HTML5 group, and the HTML5 specification is based on the WhatWG’s HTML document. Read this if you need more clarifications: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2012Jul/0119.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/20... http://blog.whatwg.org/html-is-the-new-html5 http://blog.whatwg.org/html-is-the-new-html5
nephyrin 14y ago
"Added to HTML5" is misleading. More specifically, the bitcoin scheme was added as a valid scheme that websites may register themselves as handlers for via navigator.registerProtocolHandler, a list that already includes mms: xmpp: webcal: tel: and other misc schemes. It doesn't specify any kind of support for the scheme for the browser. See http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#whitelisted-scheme http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#whitelist...
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- bpierre 14y ago
  Yes, I didn’t know how to be more precise while being concise. I replaced the word “added” with “whitelisted”, thanks.
  - dubcanada 14y ago
    It should also be made clear that being whitelisted is different from being implemented.
peterarmstrong 14y ago
I would love to see the reaction here if this was paypal: not bitcoin:
- evan_ 14y ago
  It wouldn't be PayPal: though because there's only one PayPal, having a scheme for it would make no sense.
- munimkazia 14y ago
  Paypal payment is implemented only using paypal website. It is pointless to add it because no website/app can register as a handler for that URL scheme to implement it in any different way. Bitcoin payment is not centralized and processed by one agency.
ck2 14y ago
Aren't they picking favorites then? I mean what about alternatives like litecoin?
- sneak 14y ago
  Yes. Favorites like http and not gopher. Litecoin will get whitelisted if it ever becomes important or useful.
  - lmm 14y ago
    If gopher is actually left out I won't be "upgrading" my pages to HTML5. Some of us still use these technologies even if they may not be the latest and greatest.
    - jacquesm 14y ago
      > Some of us For very small values of 'some'. Can you give a couple of (practical!) examples where gopher has not been replaced by http? Chrome, explorer, opera and safari do not support gopher, and from 4.0 firefox did not support it either (though there is a plug-in).
      - lmm 14y ago
        I was speaking for myself rather than making a principled stand; my site still links back to some documents on my old university's system, via gopher. Perhaps there is an http equivalent that new students would use, but if there is then I don't have access to it.
    - jordan_clark 14y ago
      Me too. Also, If the phone company makes it to where I can't use my 2400 baud modem anymore I am canceling my account.
Kiro 14y ago
Not good. HTML5 shouldn't be opinionated and definitely not in favor of a doomed standard.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
CiaranMcNulty 14y ago
People are way overreacting to this. HTML already lets arbitrary applications register themselves as protocol handlers at the OS level, so for instance spotify:// links get handled by the correct binary. All this does is let a website register itself as the handler of a particular protocol. This has obvious uses for instance letting mailto: be handled by Google Mail if the user wants it to be. I'm not sure why HTML5 has to have a whitelist of protocols that allow websites to register as handlers - it seems like an overhead.

182 points by bpierre 14y ago

hippich 14y ago

how i can see name of user who committed this?

unfletch 14y ago
The name is always "Ian Hickson". He's the only committer on the HTML5 SVN repo: $ svn log -q | egrep "^r\d+" | cut -d "|" -f 2 | sort | uniq -c 7850 ianh
bpierre 14y ago
In the commit-watchers mailing list: http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/commit-watchers-whatwg.org/2013/006999.html http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/commit-watchers-whatwg.org...
eric_bullington 14y ago
Looks like Mike Hearn, googler and core Bitcoin developer.

betterunix 14y ago

This screams bad idea to me...

MichaelApproved 14y ago
Care to elaborate?
- alptrv 14y ago
  Maybe because there are many other currencies besides bitcoin, what about ripple, litecoin, etc? Would they alter the standart every time to add one of them?
  - icebraining 14y ago
    If those currencies gain traction comparable to Bitcoin, why not? The standard is being changed every day anyway.
  - drdaeman 14y ago
    I believe they can use "web+litecoin" in the meanwhile. When they'll get enough traction, they may get their designated "top-level" scheme. Same as with MIME types: application/vnd.org.example.foobar for anyone, application/foobar when you're famous.

msutherl 14y ago

Everyone who maintains the HTML5 spec. is named Mike.

return13 14y ago
++
notatoad 14y ago
it's a diff of an alphabetical list, it's showing a few lines on either side of the name that was added. So all the HTML5 spec contributors whose names start with the letters "mike" are called Mike.
fchollet 14y ago
What about Mikko?
lmm 14y ago
I remember speculation that "Satoshi" was someone also named Mike. Coincidence?

FireBeyond 14y ago

Seems like a horrible and arbitrary idea. What is it meant to achieve? Send a bitcoin to an address? View a block? HTML5 started off well, but is beginning to morph into a cargo cult of 'cool': the return of mystery navigation, "swipe to navigate", many others.

gbaygon 14y ago
According to the link in the comment: "The purpose of this URI scheme is to enable users to easily make payments by simply clicking links on webpages or scanning QR Codes." Source: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0021 https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0021
drewblaisdell 14y ago
You have given reasons that support the idea that this is arbitrary, but why is it horrible?
- justincormack 14y ago
  Are we going to have to whitelist every currency that will exist in the future? At least have a pay: schema so you do pay:bitcoin.com/... or something.
  - SkyMarshal 14y ago
    Exactly. Needs another layer of abstraction to handle competing crypto currencies. BTC was the first, but won't be the last.
    - pjscott 14y ago
      Something analogous to the way magnet URIs are used as an extensible scheme for peer-to-peer filesharing links? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet_URI_scheme http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet_URI_scheme
      - 14y ago

Houshalter 14y ago

What does this mean exactly?

chrisfarms 14y ago
It is referring to the registerProtocolHandler function. The function allows you to register handlers for custom schemes, so that you can do clever things with links like <a href="awesome://example.com">awesome</a>. The "web+something" namespace is what we should be using for our custom scheme handlers, but there are a bunch of other web-related schemes that will be fine to use too... "bitcoin" is one of the OK ones. It's not a big deal as far as I can see... basically any scheme that is popular enough or documented enough and isn't supposed to launch some external application could probably get white-listed if you asked nicely.

itsybitsycoder 14y ago

OK, if I understand correctly this is the WHATWG HTML5, not the W3C HTML5. Are there any browsers actually using WHATWG's spec?

bpierre 14y ago
Yes, all of them! :-) WhatWG HTML is the living standard, and the HTML5 (W3C) spec. is like a snapshot. http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#What_is_HTML5.3F http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#What_is_HTML5.3F
- itsybitsycoder 14y ago
  No, it's not that simple. http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#WHATWG_and_the_W3C_HTML_WG http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#WHATWG_and_the_W3C_HTML_WG
  - bpierre 14y ago
    Yeah, nothing is simple, but it’s still true most of the time. Feel free to explain better :-)
    - itsybitsycoder 14y ago
      Basically, the WHATWG and W3C specs have diverged and there is no clear plan for them to meet up again. So, just because WHATWTG has added bitcoin links to their HTML5 spec does not mean that W3C will add bitcoin links to theirs. W3C is generally considered the more respected/"official" spec out of the two. (I would not be surprised if most people who've heard of the W3C have not heard of WHATWG.) I know that browser developers care about being W3C-compliant. I'm not sure whether they care about being WHATWG-compliant.
      - bpierre 14y ago
        Browser developers care about being “WhatWG compliant”, because the WhatWG HTML group is composed by browser editors, they work with the W3C HTML5 group, and the HTML5 specification is based on the WhatWG’s HTML document. Read this if you need more clarifications: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2012Jul/0119.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/20... http://blog.whatwg.org/html-is-the-new-html5 http://blog.whatwg.org/html-is-the-new-html5

nephyrin 14y ago

"Added to HTML5" is misleading. More specifically, the bitcoin scheme was added as a valid scheme that websites may register themselves as handlers for via navigator.registerProtocolHandler, a list that already includes mms: xmpp: webcal: tel: and other misc schemes. It doesn't specify any kind of support for the scheme for the browser. See http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#whitelisted-scheme http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#whitelist...

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
bpierre 14y ago
Yes, I didn’t know how to be more precise while being concise. I replaced the word “added” with “whitelisted”, thanks.
- dubcanada 14y ago
  It should also be made clear that being whitelisted is different from being implemented.

peterarmstrong 14y ago

I would love to see the reaction here if this was paypal: not bitcoin:

evan_ 14y ago
It wouldn't be PayPal: though because there's only one PayPal, having a scheme for it would make no sense.
munimkazia 14y ago
Paypal payment is implemented only using paypal website. It is pointless to add it because no website/app can register as a handler for that URL scheme to implement it in any different way. Bitcoin payment is not centralized and processed by one agency.

ck2 14y ago

Aren't they picking favorites then? I mean what about alternatives like litecoin?

sneak 14y ago
Yes. Favorites like http and not gopher. Litecoin will get whitelisted if it ever becomes important or useful.
- lmm 14y ago
  If gopher is actually left out I won't be "upgrading" my pages to HTML5. Some of us still use these technologies even if they may not be the latest and greatest.
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    > Some of us For very small values of 'some'. Can you give a couple of (practical!) examples where gopher has not been replaced by http? Chrome, explorer, opera and safari do not support gopher, and from 4.0 firefox did not support it either (though there is a plug-in).
    - lmm 14y ago
      I was speaking for myself rather than making a principled stand; my site still links back to some documents on my old university's system, via gopher. Perhaps there is an http equivalent that new students would use, but if there is then I don't have access to it.
  - jordan_clark 14y ago
    Me too. Also, If the phone company makes it to where I can't use my 2400 baud modem anymore I am canceling my account.

Kiro 14y ago

Not good. HTML5 shouldn't be opinionated and definitely not in favor of a doomed standard.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

CiaranMcNulty 14y ago

People are way overreacting to this. HTML already lets arbitrary applications register themselves as protocol handlers at the OS level, so for instance spotify:// links get handled by the correct binary. All this does is let a website register itself as the handler of a particular protocol. This has obvious uses for instance letting mailto: be handled by Google Mail if the user wants it to be. I'm not sure why HTML5 has to have a whitelist of protocols that allow websites to register as handlers - it seems like an overhead.