shared mime info: URI scheme handlers for non browsers
remi at remlab.net
Mon Oct 31 10:18:17 PDT 2011
Le lundi 31 octobre 2011 18:26:33 Bastien Nocera, vous avez écrit :
> On Mon, 2011-10-31 at 18:16 +0200, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> > Le lundi 31 octobre 2011 18:05:41 Bastien Nocera, vous avez écrit :
> > > There are many more problems with that than just knowing whether the
> > > application supports the protocol (or a subset of the protocol). What
> > > about passing cookie that the website might use for authentication?
> > >
> > > In any case, it's not what x-scheme-handler is trying to solve.
> > I got that. I'm concerned that every file manager will lack this (except
> > KDE), just because one (?) desktop refuses to standardize it though.
> Because it's broken, mostly.
It's broken if you don't use it correctly.
> David already explained the reasons why it
> was broken, and nothing changed since then:
Sure, the credentials may need to be retyped. Though the browser could pass
the username and password in the URL. Or better yet, the MIME handling
application could query the XDG session secret store. And yeah, in some cases
the (lack of) cookies will cause failure.
But for things like video streaming or DAV, it usually works because you
rarely need cookies. On the other hand, using GVFS, FUSE or whatever, will
fail because the applications will need to know the URL as a base (e.g. Apple
HLS) and/or will need to make usage-specific HTTP queries, that the browser
I/O abstraction cannot do.
Of course, if you're trying to download a document from some cookie-
authenticated service, passing the URL will fail miserably. But should
LibreOffice or GIMP really register for HTTP anyway? I don't really see the
benefit for those applications and their MIME types to use "progressive"
More information about the xdg