Closed Bug 340179 Opened 15 years ago Closed 15 years ago

Implement Web Applications 1.0 "registerContentHandler"

Categories

(Core :: DOM: Core & HTML, defect, P1)

defect

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED
mozilla1.8.1beta1

People

(Reporter: bugs, Assigned: bugs)

References

()

Details

(Keywords: fixed1.8.1, Whiteboard: [swag:2d])

Attachments

(3 files)

To allow other web based feed providers to register to show up in the set of choices, we need to implement registerContentHandler. See URI for details.
Attached patch patchSplinter Review
This adds a nsIDOMClientInformation interface... also a nsIWebContentHandlerRegistrar interface & contract id that a component elsewhere has to implement... and makes nsNavigator implement the ClientInformation interface. 

I'm not so hot on the location of nsIWebContentHandlerRegistrar in the source repository, but it was the best I could think of.
Attachment #224260 - Flags: review?
Attachment #224260 - Flags: review? → review?(bugmail)
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Flags: blocking1.8.1+
Priority: -- → P1
Comment on attachment 224260 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

This is missing the actual nsIWebContentHandlerRegistrar implementation. Is that being written in another bug or did you diff the wrong directories?

Or is the idea that that part will be handled by an extension?

r=me on the parts that are here though.
Attachment #224260 - Flags: review?(bugmail) → review+
It is being implemented in another directory, right now browser/components/feeds, but I'll move it to toolkit once it begins to handle more than just feed types (probably in Firefox 3.0)

Need to circle around with Hixie once mroe and then I'll land this. 

Thanks for the review!
Whiteboard: [swag:2d]
Attachment #224260 - Flags: superreview?(darin)
Comment on attachment 224260 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

sr=darin
Attachment #224260 - Flags: superreview?(darin) → superreview+
Please land this on trunk, let bake, and request approval-1.8.1 once it's cooled.
Whiteboard: [swag:2d] → [swag:2d] [checkin needed]
So I have a few questions:

1)  Could we add comments to the new interfaces either explaining what the
    methods do or pointing to the spec that explains it?
2)  Is there a reason we don't implement the MUST about URIs not containing
    '%s' from the spec?
3)  This contract is expected to be implemented by embeddors, right?  Do we
    want to use the "embeddor.implemented" thing we were going to use as a
    convention for such things at some point (e.g. "@mozilla.org/embeddor.implemented/bookmark-charset-resolver;1" is an example.
    We should probably consider creating a CID file for content things like
    this too...
bz-

How about: 
"@mozilla.org/embeddor.implemented/web-content-handler-registrar;1" ?

I'll make a follow on patch.

As far as processing of the parameters themselves, I had delegated that to the implementation (in browser/). Do you think that should be brought in here? Otherwise I can add a note to the nsIWebContentHandlerRegistrar interface stipulating that the implementor must do this. 
I thought the idea was that the interface was implenented by content in browser/? I.e. that no extensions or embeddors were involved in this?
Jonas, Camino may wish to implement this too, depending on how they want to handle feeds. 
Comment on attachment 228244 [details] [diff] [review]
patch for branch, incorporating contract id and comments

a=darin on behalf of drivers
Attachment #228244 - Flags: approval1.8.1? → approval1.8.1+
Attachment #228245 - Flags: review?(darin) → review+
fixed-on-trunk, fixed-1.8-branch
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 15 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Keywords: fixed1.8.1
Whiteboard: [swag:2d] [checkin needed] → [swag:2d]
Component: DOM: Mozilla Extensions → DOM
Component: DOM → DOM: Core & HTML
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.