From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UUzrg-00062Q-3p for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 13:36:04 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of m.gmane.org designates 80.91.229.3 as permitted sender) client-ip=80.91.229.3; envelope-from=gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org; helo=plane.gmane.org; Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1UUzre-0006JN-JN for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 13:36:04 +0000 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UUzrV-0005oY-G2 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:35:53 +0200 Received: from e179071225.adsl.alicedsl.de ([85.179.71.225]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:35:53 +0200 Received: from andreas by e179071225.adsl.alicedsl.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:35:53 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net From: Andreas Schildbach Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:35:45 +0200 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: e179071225.adsl.alicedsl.de User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5 In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: -0.4 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [80.91.229.3 listed in list.dnswl.org] -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record 1.1 DKIM_ADSP_ALL No valid author signature, domain signs all mail -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1UUzre-0006JN-JN 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: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 13:36:04 -0000 I had another amendment, which roughly (can't remember the details) has to do with case-sensitivity of the scheme part and parameter names. If I remember right, BITCOIN:1d4...?AMOUNT=0.1 would be a correct URI but not valid in the sense of BIP21 currently. On 04/24/2013 09:42 AM, Mike Hearn wrote: > HTML5 allows web apps to register themselves for handling URI schemes, > such as the bitcoin: URI that is already in use and being extended as > part of the payment protocol. > > The bad news is that for security reasons there is a whitelist of > acceptable schemes in the spec: > > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/timers.html#dom-navigator-registerprotocolhandler > > The good news is that yesterday I talked to Hixie about it and he added > bitcoin to the whitelist: > > http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=7849&to=7850 > > I'm currently finding out what the process is for browser makers to > notice the change (perhaps they watch the spec commit history and > nothing needs to be done), but within a few months most users should > have browsers that can accept bitcoin as a web-app handleable protocol > scheme. I suppose IE10 users may be the laggards, but I guess we can > live with that for now. > > 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? Here's his feedback: > > > - BNF doesn't say what it's character set is (presumably it's Unicode) > > - "bitcoinparams" production doesn't define the separator, so in theory > the syntax is ...?label=foomessage=fooother=foo (rather than > ...?label=foo&message=foo etc) > > - the syntax allows ?amount=FOO&amount=1.1 as far as I can tell, since > "otherparam" matches any name followed by any value, including "amount" > followed by a bogus value. > > - "pchar" is referenced without definition. > > - the "simpler" syntax is just wrong (it would result in > bitcoin:address?amount=1?label=FOO rather > than bitcoin:address?amount=1&label=FOO) > > BTW the IETF URL specs are being obsoleted > by http://url.spec.whatwg.org/, at least for Web purposes. In that case > matters. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt > New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service > that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your > browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic > and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >