Add "lbry" scheme to allowlist

[ben221199]

• At least two implementers are interested (and none opposed):
  • Blink (Chromium): We will add support for this if it gets merged to the HTML spec
  • Gecko (Firefox): The bug report did get reopened after I referenced to this pull request, so I assume they will implement it as soon as it is spec.
  • WebKit (Safari): WebKit is unable to implement lbry, because they don't support registerProtocolHandler at all. However, they didn't oppose.
• Tests are written and can be reviewed and commented upon at:
  • N/A
• Implementation bugs are filed:
  • Blink (Chromium): https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1514394
  • Gecko (Firefox): https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1871955
  • WebKit (Safari): https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=266903 and https://feedbackassistant.apple.com/feedback/13571353
• MDN issue is filed: Add LBRY scheme to allowlist documentation mdn/mdn#472

(See WHATWG Working Mode: Changes for more details.)

---

💥 Error: Wattsi server error 💥

PR Preview failed to build. (Last tried on Feb 3, 2024, 3:29 PM UTC).

More

PR Preview relies on a number of web services to run. There seems to be an issue with the following one:

🚨 Wattsi Server - Wattsi Server is the web service used to build the WHATWG HTML spec.

🔗 Related URL

Parsing MDN data...
Parsing...
Parse Error: (795,87) parse error while closing p element

If you don't have enough information above to solve the error by yourself (or to understand to which web service the error is related to, if any), please file an issue.

[ben221199]

Also see #9016.

[ben221199]

Hello @domenic, I see you added the needs implementer interest. How can I fix that implementers are interested and that this interest is known by the WHATWG team?

[ben221199]

Tagging @brave here.

[ben221199]

Chromium seems interested to implement this as soon as this is spec.

[ben221199]

I'm tagging both @evilpie and @annevk, because they seem to be assigned to the bugs I made at Mozilla and Apple. Maybe they can provide extra information to get this thing merged. The browsers will likely only add "lbry" after it has been merged to WHATWG.

[ben221199]

Hi @domenic, I think I've done everything. Did I miss something? If not, I think it can be merged. The specification lbry:// is documented here: https://lbry.tech/spec#urls.

[domenic]

This cannot be merged, because it does not have multi implementer interest. An open bug does not suffice; we need an implementer representative to say on this thread "we will ship this in our browser", for two different browsers.

[ben221199]

Hi @domenic, can this be two browsers that use the same browser engine or should those be different? Because Brave browser seemed interested too, but they are using Chromium, that also was interested.

[domenic]

They need to be separate browser engines.

[ben221199]

@domenic:

They need to be separate browser engines.

Okay, thanks for letting me know. WebKit cannot implement it because they don't support registerProtocolHandler at all, so I think I have to ask the Mozilla guys to letting me know if they are interested. The Chromium people already said they would implement it.

---

I have another question, maybe for future pull requests too: Next to Chromium, Gecko and Mozilla, can I ask smaller browser engines too? For example, a representive of one of the browser engines listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_browser_engines, libweb for the Ladybird browser, @awesomekling, seems really accessible to ask such questions.

[ben221199]

For Mozilla, I think it is either @petervanderbeken or @evilpie that can tell if they are interested.

[ADKaster]

can I ask smaller browser engines too? [...]] libweb for the Ladybird browser, awesomekling, seems really accessible to ask such questions.

I would expect that until Ladybird actually passes a significant portion (>75%?) of WPT, LibWeb agreeing to ship a feature would not meet the standard required for "implementer interest" for the spec.

[zcorpan]

For Mozilla, we are not interested in adding lbry to the allowlist. However, we're interested in #9158

[ben221199]

Hi @zcorpan, thank you for your response. May I know the reason for not being interested in adding lbry? Is it just because of the existance of #9158 or are there other reasons? The lbry scheme is registered at IANA after all: https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/uri-schemes.xhtml (and https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/prov/lbry). No blaming, just curious. After all, #9158 sounds like a good idea to think about.

Edit:
Btw, I saw the comments on the Bugzilla bug too, but I didn't see anything but #9158.

[zcorpan]

Hi @zcorpan, thank you for your response. May I know the reason for not being interested in adding lbry? Is it just because of the existance of #9158

Yes.

[ben221199]

Okay. Thanks. To be honest, it will possibly delay having this pull request merged, but I see the importance of #9158, so in that case I will accept that fate. I also commented at #9158 to share my view on the issue.

[domenic]

Given that this cannot meet the bar for two-implementer interest, since neither Mozilla nor Apple are interested, I will close this. (We can, of course, reopen if either changes their mind.)

[ben221199]

Hi @domenic, I agree, but you didn't answer #9017 (comment) yet. Does the rule of interested browser engine developers also apply to smaller browser engines, like LibWeb?

[domenic]

No.

[ben221199]

Hmmm okay. Good too know.