[whatwg] Registering protocol handlers

Christian Biesinger 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.

Interesting point.

> 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...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 4762 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20060425/9f6281b9/attachment-0001.bin>

More information about the whatwg mailing list