Le lundi 31 octobre 2011 18:26:33 Bastien Nocera, vous avez écrit : > On Mon, 2011-10-31 at 18:16 +0200, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote: > > Le lundi 31 octobre 2011 18:05:41 Bastien Nocera, vous avez écrit : > > > There are many more problems with that than just knowing whether the > > > application supports the protocol (or a subset of the protocol). What > > > about passing cookie that the website might use for authentication? > > > > > > In any case, it's not what x-scheme-handler is trying to solve. > > > > I got that. I'm concerned that every file manager will lack this (except > > KDE), just because one (?) desktop refuses to standardize it though. > > Because it's broken, mostly.
It's broken if you don't use it correctly. > David already explained the reasons why it > was broken, and nothing changed since then: > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.xdg.devel/12370/ Sure, the credentials may need to be retyped. Though the browser could pass the username and password in the URL. Or better yet, the MIME handling application could query the XDG session secret store. And yeah, in some cases the (lack of) cookies will cause failure. But for things like video streaming or DAV, it usually works because you rarely need cookies. On the other hand, using GVFS, FUSE or whatever, will fail because the applications will need to know the URL as a base (e.g. Apple HLS) and/or will need to make usage-specific HTTP queries, that the browser I/O abstraction cannot do. Of course, if you're trying to download a document from some cookie- authenticated service, passing the URL will fail miserably. But should LibreOffice or GIMP really register for HTTP anyway? I don't really see the benefit for those applications and their MIME types to use "progressive" download. -- Rémi Denis-Courmont http://www.remlab.net/ http://fi.linkedin.com/in/remidenis _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
