Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bluematt.me
	designates 173.246.101.161 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=173.246.101.161;
	envelope-from=bitcoin-list@bluematt.me; helo=mail.bluematt.me; 
References: <1327704664.31621.YahooMailNeo@web121003.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
	<201201271800.31819.luke@dashjr.org>
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <201201271800.31819.luke@dashjr.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----VI44AN7K9O8Q9QZXWUTX0TUNB0MOCW"
From: bitcoin-list@bluematt.me
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:36:31 -0500
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Message-ID: <05d62c81-ef50-4c43-8fa5-65592c8f54a4@email.android.com>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 0020: URI Scheme
Precedence: list

------VI44AN7K9O8Q9QZXWUTX0TUNB0MOCW
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

It was implemented in the waylaying client with the merge of Bitcoin-Qt f=
or drag and drop, and just recently for system URI handling in https://gi=
thub.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/70f55355e29c8e45b607e782c5d76609d23cc858.=
 However the version on the wiki armed as BIP 20 has a ton of extraneous =
crap in it's number encoding which is not implemented in Bitcoin-Qt since=
 it was explicitly voted against at the time the spec was being discussed=
. If that stuff were removed, I would agree that it is final.

Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:

On Friday, January 27, 2012 5:51:04 PM Amir Taaki wrote:
> BIP 0020 is the old URI scheme BIPisized.
>=20
> ATM it is Draft status.

It's been Final (even according to BIP 1 standards) since late January 20=
11.=20
The only change recently is assigning it a BIP number for formality.

> I do not know enough about the discussion back last year to know whethe=
r to
> move it to Accepted status or not. My feelings are that having a
> re-decision (even if it was accepted last year) is healthy since it mak=
es
> no sense to have a standard before a standardisation process existed.

Once P2SH is deployed, it will probably make good sense to revisit the UR=
I=20
Scheme for revision, and eventually move BIP 20 to Replaced/Superceded st=
atus.

_____________________________________________

Try before you buy =3D See our experts in action!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2
_____________________________________________

Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development


------VI44AN7K9O8Q9QZXWUTX0TUNB0MOCW
Content-Type: text/html;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><head></head><body>It was implemented in the waylaying client with =
the merge of Bitcoin-Qt for drag and drop, and just recently for system U=
RI handling in <a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/70f55=
355e29c8e45b607e782c5d76609d23cc858">https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/c=
ommit/70f55355e29c8e45b607e782c5d76609d23cc858</a>. However the version o=
n the wiki armed as BIP 20 has a ton of extraneous crap in it&#39;s numbe=
r encoding which is not implemented in Bitcoin-Qt since it was explicitly=
 voted against at the time the spec was being discussed. If that stuff we=
re removed, I would agree that it is final.<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote">Luke-Jr &lt;luke@dashjr.org&gt; wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quo=
te" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 2=
04, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre style=3D"white-space: pre-wrap; word-wrap:break-word; font-family: s=
ans-serif">On Friday, January 27, 2012 5:51:04 PM Amir Taaki wrote:<br />=
&gt; BIP 0020 is the old URI scheme BIPisized.<br />&gt; <br />&gt; ATM i=
t is Draft status.<br /><br />It's been Final (even according to BIP 1 st=
andards) since late January 2011. <br />The only change recently is assig=
ning it a BIP number for formality.<br /><br />&gt; I do not know enough =
about the discussion back last year to know whether to<br />&gt; move it =
to Accepted status or not. My feelings are that having a<br />&gt; re-dec=
ision (even if it was accepted last year) is healthy since it makes<br />=
&gt; no sense to have a standard before a standardisation process existed=
.<br /><br />Once P2SH is deployed, it will probably make good sense to r=
evisit the URI <br />Scheme for revision, and eventually move BIP 20 to R=
eplaced/Superceded status.<br /><br /><hr /><br />Try before you buy =3D =
See our experts in action!<br />The most
comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers<br />is ju=
st $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,<br />=
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!<br /=
><a href=3D"http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2">http://p.sf.net/sfu/lea=
rndevnow-dev2</a><br /><hr /><br />Bitcoin-development mailing list<br />=
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net<br /><a href=3D"https://lists.s=
ourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development">https://lists.sourcefo=
rge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development</a><br /></pre></blockquote></=
div></body></html>
------VI44AN7K9O8Q9QZXWUTX0TUNB0MOCW--