Custom URI schemes & KDE

David Faure faure at
Mon Jan 2 10:37:33 GMT 2006

On Saturday 31 December 2005 18:27, Frans Englich wrote:
> On Friday 30 December 2005 21:50, David Faure wrote:
> > On Friday 30 December 2005 17:39, Frans Englich wrote:
> > > An application needs to shuffle data around and -- for internal use --
> > > invents a "data" scheme. Then the application grows and the URI scheme
> > > becomes part of, say, an interface between plugins. Who knows what
> > > happens, perhaps KIO gains support for the actual data scheme(RFC2397)
> > > and the mess is there.
Not really since the app has to filter out "data" urls in the first place, since when it
was written KIO didn't support it.

> And the advice "Yeah, just invent a scheme and use your app name" is bound to 
> cause trouble. Right, "kmymoney" has a low /likely/ hood, but what about 
> "kgdb"? And what is the likely hood in X years?

Doesn't matter. You can have only one binary named kgdb in $KDEDIR/bin.
So either you're using the current kgdb, or a x-years-in-the-future kgdb;
and why does it matter if they both (with a different name or prefix) use
the same URL scheme *internally*?

> I don't see your point; let's return to the document. I understand that you 
> would invent a URI scheme rather than follow the recommendations done by the 
> W3C & IETF, but is there somekind of trouble if those who not wants to do it 
> the proper way?

I'm being practical; whatever an app uses internally doesn't matter, especially
if it filters out known protocols before calling out to KIO - it has to anyway, since
it wouldn't work otherwise! E.g. konqueror filters out exec: from the about page
before trying to load an exec: url with kio, which wouldn't work.

You haven't proven that using "sql:" in kmymoney created any actual bug either; did it?

David Faure, faure at, sponsored by Trolltech to work on KDE,
Konqueror (, and KOffice (

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list