Adding "ipfs" to the safelisted schemes

# Mathias Rangel Wulff (4 days ago)

To whom it might concern

In short, I suggest adding "ipfs" to the safelisted schemes provided in the HTML specs 8.7.1.3 "Custom scheme handlers: the registerProtocolHandler() method" ( html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/system-state.html#safelisted-scheme)

The idea of building a decentralised web was core in the early days of what we now know as the internet. Today the landscape of the internet has vastly changed; centralised megahubs of content has turned the client-server distribution model into a much more throttle prone and censorable beast than ever imagined.

The InterPlanetary File System (IPFS) is a peer-to-peer hypermedia protocol where content is stored in a distributed manner and addressed by content identifiers. The project has gained much traction since its inception in 2014, and vast amounts of data are now stored in this parallel web of peers providing a genuinely decentralised infrastructure for exchanging data.

To enhance mainstream adoption the regular browser experience needs to bridge how content is accessed via IPFS. Browser plugins already exists, but implementation and fallback mechanisms are limited due to existing (and legitimate) safety concerns.

Adding "ipfs" to the safelisted schemes of the registerProtocolHandler method will significantly improve the seamless adoption of a censor resistant and decentralised internet, bringing the user experience closer to what was originally envisioned for the world wide web.

As an example, the browser Brave (brave.com) is now working on native support for providing content via IPFS as a seamlessly integrated part of the user experience. Building upon The Chromium Project (chromium.org) a whitelisting of "ipfs" as a safe scheme will be a step towards Brave providing its users with a more decentralised web.

For more information about IPFS, please visit ipfs.io

  • Mathias Rangel Wulff
Contact us to advertise here
# Pascal Precht (4 days ago)

All for it!

# Domenic Denicola (4 days ago)

From: whatwg <whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org> On Behalf Of Mathias Rangel Wulff

In short, I suggest adding "ipfs" to the safelisted schemes provided in the HTML specs 8.7.1.3 "Custom scheme handlers: the registerProtocolHandler() method" ( html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/system-state.html#safelisted- scheme)

Thanks for reaching out. Unfortunately, we haven't had much success in getting implementers to update this list. You can see previous attempts at:

Without implementer interest, there's not much we can do on the spec side. Maybe some implementers will see this message and chime in on this mailing list.

Otherwise, you can try getting their attention on their own bug trackers/mailing lists, but some of the above threads indicate that hasn't been too successful either.

Sorry we don't have better news for you :(

# Mathias Rangel Wulff (2 days ago)

Thank you for getting back to me.

Without implementer interest, there's not much we can do on the spec

side.

Is it correctly understood that with "implementers" you refer to the team behind each browser implementation? Firefox whitelisted "ipfs" as a safe scheme in January 2018: hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/c2cb8a06bcf1

I know that Firefox is more "out there" being a trailblazer for new features but it does indicate that there is a case for adding "ipfs" to the safelisted schemes provided in the HTML specs 8.7.1.3 "Custom scheme handlers: the registerProtocolHandler() method" ( html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/system-state.html#safelisted-scheme)

Unfortunately, we haven't had much success in getting implementers to

update this list.

Pressure is built one drop at a time.

  • Mathias Rangel Wulff
# Domenic Denicola (6 hours ago)

From: whatwg <whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org> On Behalf Of Mathias Rangel Wulff

Is it correctly understood that with "implementers" you refer to the team behind each browser implementation? Firefox whitelisted "ipfs" as a safe scheme in January 2018: hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/c2cb8a06bcf1

Yep! That's a good start. We'd need one other implementer, per the working mode, to add it to the spec.

# L. David Baron (6 hours ago)

On Saturday 2018-07-14 21:37 +0200, Mathias Rangel Wulff wrote:

Hi Domenic

Thank you for getting back to me.

Without implementer interest, there's not much we can do on the spec side.

Is it correctly understood that with "implementers" you refer to the team behind each browser implementation? Firefox whitelisted "ipfs" as a safe scheme in January 2018: hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/c2cb8a06bcf1

I believe this is a different whitelist, related to Web Extensions. I think the actual list Firefox uses for registerProtocolHandler is based on the following set of preferences: searchfox.org/mozilla-central/search?q=network.protocol-handler.external&path= by the implementation which I believe lives here: searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/browser/components/feeds/WebContentConverter.js

Want more features?

Request early access to our private beta of readable email premium.