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; 
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
From: Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:35:45 +0200
Message-ID: <kl8n3c$ikg$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <CANEZrP2OPU8cpvUJ0B8z00PPp6jOGCjQ1ipZ9mq8_LSLo4Rebg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP2OPU8cpvUJ0B8z00PPp6jOGCjQ1ipZ9mq8_LSLo4Rebg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP21 bitcoin URIs and HTML5
Precedence: list

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
>