From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UXt16-0003fk-Uh for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 02 May 2013 12:53:45 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.219.49 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.219.49; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f49.google.com; Received: from mail-oa0-f49.google.com ([209.85.219.49]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1UXt16-0006Pt-0j for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 02 May 2013 12:53:44 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id l20so467601oag.22 for ; Thu, 02 May 2013 05:53:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.14.226 with SMTP id s2mr1723516oec.124.1367499218661; Thu, 02 May 2013 05:53:38 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.167.169 with HTTP; Thu, 2 May 2013 05:53:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 14:53:38 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: SVVWyRjUR_fWKhf06L2wJrK8cXg Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Gregory Maxwell Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8fb1f9c428b80104dbbbb956 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1UXt16-0006Pt-0j Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP21 bitcoin URIs and HTML5 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 12:53:45 -0000 --e89a8fb1f9c428b80104dbbbb956 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Chrome has whitelisted bitcoin: URIs for web apps, and Firefox it turns out doesn't use whitelisting at all, so it already works there. https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/14531004 I'm hoping this means web wallet developers won't be put off from supporting the payment protocol (that risk is the reason I started this work). The next step is to file bugs against WebKit (for Safari/iOS/misc other platforms), and IE, though I don't know if Microsoft uses open bug trackers much. On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 6:37 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Gavin Andresen > wrote: > >> Ian pointed out some errors in the BIP21 spec. What's the process for > >> amending the BIP? Do we need to create a new one and mark the old one as > >> replaced, or can we just fix it in place given the relatively exotic > nature > >> of most of the issues? > > Those all sound like bugs in the BIP; I think they should just be fixed, > I > > don't think we need a new BIP. > > Yup. Corrections are fine, esp ones which are not gratuitously > incompatible. > --e89a8fb1f9c428b80104dbbbb956 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Chrome has whitelisted bitcoin: URIs for web apps, and Fir= efox it turns out doesn't use whitelisting at all, so it already works = there.


I'm hoping this means web wallet develo= pers won't be put off from supporting the payment protocol (that risk i= s the reason I started this work).

The next step is to file bugs against WebKit (for Safari/iOS/misc other pla= tforms), and IE, though I don't know if Microsoft uses open bug tracker= s much.



On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 6:37 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com&= gt; wrote:
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote= :
>> Ian pointed out some errors in the BIP21 spec. What's the proc= ess for
>> amending the BIP? Do we need to create a new one and mark the old = one as
>> replaced, or can we just fix it in place given the relatively exot= ic nature
>> of most of the issues?
> Those all sound like bugs in the BIP; I think they should just be fixe= d, I
> don't think we need a new BIP.

Yup. =C2=A0Corrections are fine, esp ones which are not gratuitously = incompatible.

--e89a8fb1f9c428b80104dbbbb956--