

Two year old bug in Android - abava
http://servletsuite.blogspot.ru/2012/12/two-years.html

======
revelation
That is a feature request, not a bug.

~~~
anonymfus
Missing features and don't working features are equal in user's eyes.

~~~
buster
That doesn't change the definition of "bug", though.

~~~
anonymfus
Definition from wikipedia (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_bug> ):

>A software bug is an error, flaw, mistake, failure, or fault in a computer
program or system that produces an incorrect or unexpected result, or causes
it to behave in unintended ways.

So lack of support for common standard is unexpected and reason for it could
be flaw or mistake.

Also <http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/bug_3>

> a mistake or problem in a computer program

<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bug?s=t>

>a defect or imperfection, as in a mechanical device, computer program, or
plan; glitch

Imperfection!

~~~
buster
Geez.. you deliberately take some words of an article and totally ignore the
primary defining words in your own pasted text which is "error, flaw, mistake,
failure, or fault". Also, it is absuletely not unexpected or an incorrect
result when it's not even implemented. It's intended by the programmer not to
work and it's your own wish that it should work. It's definitely not a fault
in the program code that it doesn't cope with the URI. It was never intended
to do that.

It would be a bug if there is code for that URI scheme and the browser/OS
should handle that, but doesn't. So if you can point me to the code in Android
or some other hint that the scheme should work, i'll agree with you and call
it a bug :)

Rest assured that arguing that a bug and a feature request are the same thing
will not help on HackerNews. You can try that elsewhere :)

------
hxseven
Is it really so bad that this SMS URI scheme wasn't implemented?

To me it looks like another potential security vulnerability that could be
abused by malicious websites.

Therefore I'm quite happy that this "feature" is missing ;)

~~~
abava
It does not send SMS automatically. Just open SMS client

~~~
hxseven
Yes, I know. If they implement it properly it's alright.

But my concern is that a it might get a security vulnerability when a nifty
hacker finds a way to automatically submit the SMS.

And in my opinion omitting the feature is the best way to avoid that problem.

------
fomojola
There's an argument that this COULD be a platform feature, but it would be
fairly simple to write an Android app that provides an IntentHandler for the
SMS scheme. I'd never actually come across that particular URL scheme used
anywhere: iOS/Apple clearly have it though.

------
toigo
This alligator seems a little closer to the boat, why don't we take care of it
first? HTTP Authentication

<http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=1353>

------
smcguinness
Here is another 2 yr old bug that I just ran into this week.
<http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=14924>

~~~
buster
Here you have a 4 year old "bug" aka enhancement:

[https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=1030&...](https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=1030&can=1&q=IMAP%20IDLE&colspec=ID%20Type%20Status%20Owner%20Summary%20Stars%20Opened)

------
superxor
If Android team doesn't see this as a potential feature, they should at the
least close the bug, just letting it rot does not align with the goal of
having a bug tracker.

------
buster
Bug or not, there are far more important things to work on then this (like
IMAP Idle support in the standard client).

