> On Jul 1, 2015, at 7:42 PM, Gyuyoung Kim <gyuyoung....@webkit.org> wrote:
> WebKit2 already has a similar feature, which is so-called *custom protocol* 
> enabled by Mac, Gtk and EFL ports. However the custom protocol feature 
> supports to register custom scheme
> through API layer instead of JavaScript. The registerProtocolHandler() is to 
> support to register the custom scheme by means of JavaScript. I don't know 
> yet why we can't support to register it
> from JavaScript.

The custom protocol handler feature of the WebKit2 API is for the embedding 
native application to provide raw data to resource loads directly.

While tangentially related to how registerProtocolHandler would work for some 
uses, there’s numerous differences. 

One key example: Since it was implemented for the native embedding application 
(which is, of course, trusted) none of the normal web security concerns have 
been taken into account.

Also, since they’re for special-use native apps instead of a general web 
browser, none of Sam’s concerns had to be accounted for:

> On Jul 4, 2015, at 10:24 AM, Sam Weinig <wei...@apple.com> wrote:
> My concern with the registerProtocolHandler() API is that it complicates an 
> already the very complicated area of custom protocols and a good 
> implementation requires configuration UI (to choose which of potentially 
> multiple apps/websites you want a specific protocol to go to) that I am not 
> sure users are in the position make.  
> ...
> From an implementation perspective I also have concerns.  How is this should 
> the registration data be managed? Can it fit in the WebSiteData model we are 
> using for other data? Does it account for non-persistent sessions?  And 
> lastly, can we get the code size of supporting a feature like this to be 
> smaller?   

I’m not crafting this reply as an argument against registerProtocolHandler, but 
rather to dispel the notion that exposing "WK2 custom protocols” to JS is all 
we need to do to get registerProtocolHandler.


> Gyuyoung.
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Gyuyoung Kim <gyuyoung....@webkit.org 
> <mailto:gyuyoung....@webkit.org>> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Darin Adler <da...@apple.com 
> <mailto:da...@apple.com>> wrote:
> Sam, Anders, you haven’t replied to the thread since Maciej made his remarks 
> two weeks ago. He asked what you dislike about the API.
> It seems that some people hope to listen why you guys dislike about this API 
> as well as I want.
> Gyuyoung.
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Gyuyoung Kim <gyuyoung....@webkit.org 
> <mailto:gyuyoung....@webkit.org>> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Michael Catanzaro <mcatanz...@igalia.com 
> <mailto:mcatanz...@igalia.com>> wrote:
> On Sun, 2015-06-07 at 17:39 -0700, Darin Adler wrote:
> > As one next step in the discussion, is there anyone that wants to
> > present a use case for a protocol other than mailto?
> irc:// would be useful for those who don't like desktop clients.
> "geo:" would be useful for people who want to use map application as well.
> Gyuyoung.
> _______________________________________________
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

webkit-dev mailing list

Reply via email to