Re: [whatwg] Adding "ipfs" to the safelisted schemes

[L. David Baron]

On Saturday 2018-07-14 21:37 +0200, Mathias Rangel Wulff wrote:
> Hi Domenic
> 
> Thank you for getting back to me.
> 
> > Without implementer interest, there's not much we can do on the spec
> side.
> 
> Is it correctly understood that with "implementers" you refer to the team
> behind each browser implementation? Firefox whitelisted "ipfs" as a safe
> scheme in January 2018:
> https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/c2cb8a06bcf1

I believe this is a different whitelist, related to Web Extensions.
I think the actual list Firefox uses for registerProtocolHandler is
based on the following set of preferences:
https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/search?q=network.protocol-handler.external&path=
by the implementation which I believe lives here:
https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/browser/components/feeds/WebContentConverter.js

-David

-- 
𝄞   L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla  https://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
 What I was walling in or walling out,
 And to whom I was like to give offense.
   - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)

Re: [whatwg] Adding "ipfs" to the safelisted schemes

[Domenic Denicola]

From: whatwg  On Behalf Of Mathias Rangel Wulff

> Is it correctly understood that with "implementers" you refer to the team
> behind each browser implementation? Firefox whitelisted "ipfs" as a safe
> scheme in January 2018:
> https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/c2cb8a06bcf1

Yep! That's a good start. We'd need one other implementer, per the working 
mode, to add it to the spec.