[whatwg] Registering protocol handlers
cbiesinger at web.de
Mon Apr 24 15:50:30 PDT 2006
Ian Hickson wrote:
> The UI feels inconsistent to the user, though, because files that the user
> would assume to be equivalent have different MIME types. e.g. clicking on
> a file whose type is registered with Windows Media Player vs a type
> registered with QuickTime.
> The spec is just there to make sure that if the page _does_ use the
> feature, it can do so in a way that will lead to predictable _server side_
> results, independent of the user agent used.
OK. I still think that pages would like to know for what content exactly
their registered handler will be used ...
> I don't think you've yet said exactly what it is you think is missing.
... which is the part that I think is missing. It sounds like we're
going in circles here though, since specifying that would mean requiring
a certain UI.
> I'm not sure what you're saying here. The API is just a way to say "I can
> handle this type", it's not a way of saying "I want to handle all content
> of this type". Is the spec misleading about this? Let me know if I can
> reword something to reduce the confusion here.
I think it is. Consider this sentence:
"Analogously, the registerContentHandler() method allows Web sites to
register themselves as handlers for content in a particular MIME type."
To me that sounds like "wants to handle (all) content of that type". I
suppose the next sentence is trying to clarify this. But if that's not
the meaning, I think the sentence should be clarified, although I can't
think of a good wording at the moment.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 4762 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the whatwg