
Bitcoin URL scheme whitelisted in HTML5 - bpierre
http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=7849&to=7850
======
nephyrin
"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/#whitelist...](http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-
work/#whitelisted-scheme)

~~~
bpierre
Yes, I didn’t know how to be more precise while being concise. I replaced the
word “added” with “whitelisted”, thanks.

~~~
dubcanada
It should also be made clear that being whitelisted is different from being
implemented.

------
FireBeyond
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.

~~~
drewblaisdell
You have given reasons that support the idea that this is arbitrary, but why
is it horrible?

~~~
justincormack
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
Exactly. Needs another layer of abstraction to handle competing crypto
currencies. BTC was the first, but won't be the last.

~~~
pjscott
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>

~~~
pixelcort
Right; perhaps it would be better to introduce a generic URI scheme for
paying:

    
    
        pay:?currency=btc&address=1BlaH&amount=1.0

~~~
pizzeys
Then you need some standardisation on what 'currency' is anyway, and if you
use ISO 4217 you shut out Bitcoin.

------
msutherl
Everyone who maintains the HTML5 spec. is named Mike.

~~~
notatoad
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.

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

~~~
bpierre
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>

~~~
itsybitsycoder
No, it's not that simple.

<http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#WHATWG_and_the_W3C_HTML_WG>

~~~
bpierre
Yeah, nothing is simple, but it’s still true most of the time. Feel free to
explain better :-)

~~~
itsybitsycoder
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
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/20...](http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-
archive/2012Jul/0119.html)

<http://blog.whatwg.org/html-is-the-new-html5>

~~~
itsybitsycoder
Thanks, this is what I was asking for.

------
ck2
Aren't they picking favorites then?

I mean what about alternatives like litecoin?

~~~
sneak
Yes. Favorites like http and not gopher.

Litecoin will get whitelisted if it ever becomes important or useful.

~~~
lmm
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
> 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
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.

------
Houshalter
What does this mean exactly?

~~~
chrisfarms
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.

------
CiaranMcNulty
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.

------
hippich
how i can see name of user who committed this?

~~~
unfletch
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

------
betterunix
This screams bad idea to me...

~~~
MichaelApproved
Care to elaborate?

~~~
alptrv
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
If those currencies gain traction comparable to Bitcoin, why not? The standard
is being changed every day anyway.

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

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

~~~
munimkazia
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.

