1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>) id 1RqwHc-0003ev-0F
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 28 Jan 2012 00:36:44 +0000
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;
Received: from vps.bluematt.me ([173.246.101.161] helo=mail.bluematt.me)
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1RqwHa-0000eQ-SH for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 28 Jan 2012 00:36:43 +0000
Received: from [21.87.101.196] (66-87-109-196.pools.spcsdns.net
[66.87.109.196])
by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5B7F3FB6
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sat, 28 Jan 2012 01:28:11 +0100 (CET)
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>
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-1.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1RqwHa-0000eQ-SH
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 0020: URI Scheme
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 00:36:44 -0000
------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'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 <luke@dashjr.org> 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 />=
> BIP 0020 is the old URI scheme BIPisized.<br />> <br />> 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 />> I do not know enough =
about the discussion back last year to know whether to<br />> move it =
to Accepted status or not. My feelings are that having a<br />> re-dec=
ision (even if it was accepted last year) is healthy since it makes<br />=
> 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--
|
