See #2546. We've been having trouble getting browsers to commit to expanding the list.

@annevk Thank you for your quick response and the hint to #2546. I think from my side there is nothing that I could do in order to promote this change request.

You could file bugs against Chrome and Firefox (the only browsers that implement this feature), mention this PR, and see if you can get traction that way.

From recent discussion in blink-dev [1] it seems API owners are ok extending the whitelist. Moreover, there was not any complaint on the doi protocol specifically. Igalia is happy to take over @asankah's Chromium work on this and implement it in Gecko, if the Chromium/Mozilla developers don't oppose. Are web developers still interested in supporting this protocol?

It seems this change has already approved. There are bugs filed in Mozilla and Chromium [2] [3] (not specifically for doi but we can probably extend them instead of opening new ones) and testing would be handled by extending [4]. Anything else needed?

[1] https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!msg/blink-dev/29sFh4tTdcs/K4XroilVBAAJ
[2] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1631446
[3] https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=651311
[4] https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/blob/master/html/webappapis/system-state-and-capabilities/the-navigator-object/protocol.https.html

I have a similar concern to #5482. It also seems rather surprising that ISO wouldn't have registered this?

(This wasn't approved by an HTML Standard editor, but the change does look correct for what is proposed.)

This is what is in https://www.doi.org/ :

"DOI names may be expressed as URLs (URIs) through a HTTP proxy server. In addition, DOI is a registered URI within the info-URI namespace (IETF RFC 4452, the "info" URI Scheme for Information Assets with Identifiers in Public Namespaces). See the DOI Handbook, 2 Numbering and 3 Resolution, for more information."

I can't find any mention of IANA URI scheme registration nor how to report something publicly. ( I only see contact@doi.org )

@DigNative Since you are the one who reported this issue, I guess you can follow-up with them to see if they have any interest in IANA URI scheme registration.

Well, info is registered at https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/uri-schemes.xhtml, though http://info-uri.info/ suggests it's somewhat obsolete? But also, info is not doi.

Well, info is registered at https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/uri-schemes.xhtml, though http://info-uri.info/ suggests it's somewhat obsolete? But also, info is not doi.

Right, I think this is supposed to be a different generic mechanism basically info:doi/... but that's a different thing from what is asked here.

Checking https://www.doi.org/doi_handbook/2_Numbering.html#2.6.2 I understand that the first sentence means one can use the "doi:name" URI. I have no idea if there is still interest from the community in including doi as in the safelist, but I assume it makes sense.

Alternative syntax is to use proxy server (e.g. "https://doi.org/name") the scheme "info:" ( https://www.doi.org/doi_handbook/2_Numbering.html#2.6.2 ), but that's a separate thing.

In any case, I drafted a request for IANA: https://github.com/fred-wang/iana-uri-schemes-provisional-registration-requests/blob/master/doi.txt

I used the email at https://www.doi.org to contact the DOI foundation and will send the request there is no opposition.

doi is now registered at IANA: https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/uri-schemes.xhtml

Thanks @fred-wang, I think I can say that Firefox would take a patch for this. What remains here:

1. Updates to tests.
2. One more implementer commitment.
3. Rebased patch.
4. @DigNative signing https://participate.whatwg.org/agreement.

It might be worth trying to consolidate all the changes in a single PR if both Chrome and Firefox are happy to add schemes. (Again, I don't see a real issue personally for Firefox if all the boxes are ticked.)

Thank you for picking up this issue.

@fred-wang Just to confirm from my side: Yes, I am still interested in including the doi scheme into the safelist in order to develop extensions using this scheme. Thank you also for your work with the IANA URI scheme registration.

@annevk I signed the Participant Agreement and will rebase the branch throughout the day.

@annevk FYI I'm still giving a bit more time for community feedback (so far only positive) for the remaining schemes at fred-wang/iana-uri-schemes-provisional-registration-requests#2 ; all of these don't seem controversial when there were discussed in the past, but I plan to open a ticket at https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions and to update the blink-dev threads, just to get confirmation from Mozilla and Chromium.