This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 18319 - Suggestion - Problem: The current HREF standard requires one link to go to one destination eliminating the option to check for a preferred content source and then fall back to a secondary source. With Application URI options linking to a native applicati
Summary: Suggestion - Problem: The current HREF standard requires one link to go to o...
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: WHATWG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: HTML (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Other other
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: Unsorted
Assignee: Ian 'Hixie' Hickson
QA Contact: contributor
URL: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/...
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2012-07-18 19:38 UTC by contributor
Modified: 2012-09-26 03:57 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments

Description contributor 2012-07-18 19:38:32 UTC 
Specification: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-html5-20120329/
Multipage: http://www.whatwg.org/C#top
Complete: http://www.whatwg.org/c#top

Comment:
Suggestion - 
Problem: The current HREF standard requires one link to go to one destination
eliminating the option to check for a preferred content source and then fall
back to a secondary source. With Application URI options linking to a native
application first may provide a more seamless experience and then falling back
to a web URL in the event the application is not present.

Solution: Introduce the ability to add a URL standard that lets you include
multiple different link formats, thus giving the ability to link to content in
native applications and the ability to fail back to opening in a web site.

ex: If they have the Android app open in there, if not than open in the
browser <a href="-iOS: myapp://some/path/here; -android:
my.app.scheme://some/path/here; -win8: my.tile://some/path/here
-http://some/path/here">Wishlist</a>


W3C: mmassie

Posted from: 216.20.177.2
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_7_4) AppleWebKit/536.11 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/20.0.1132.57 Safari/536.11
Comment 1 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2012-09-26 03:57:43 UTC 
That sounds rather complicated. Not clear to me that it would be worth it.