feat: Poor Man's Protocol Handlers

[lidel]

This is an implementation of ridiculous idea from #164 (comment)
I am really sorry, but its the only way to get dweb:// working across all browsers 🙄

---

As usual, I am not sure how to label checkbox responsible for toggling this feature in Preferences.
Current label looks like this:

Any ideas how to improve it before I merge this PR?

[ghost]

Awesome :):) Just from a quick glance it might be better to remove dweb:// here since it's actually dweb: and a URI scheme, not a URL scheme. Or can you handle URIs here too? Then dweb:/ipfs/$cid and dweb:/ipns/$peerid would be correct examples of these.

[lidel]

Good question @lgierth !
Right now it supports both single and double slash ( dweb:/ipfs/$cid and dweb://ipfs/$cid )
Should it also support versions without leading slash (so that ipfs:$cid works too) ?

[ghost]

Right, you get the whole string so you can match whatever you want :) It should only be ipfs:// ipns:// and dweb:. I've promised to write exactly this down for a while (sorry @diasdavid!)

Should it also support versions without leading slash (so that ipfs:$cid works too) ?

This would not be a URL anymore, we'd then have a URL scheme named ipfs and a URI scheme named ipfs

[ghost]

It should only be ipfs:// ipns:// and dweb:

And maybe later also ipld:// if we decide for an /ipld namespace (I think that's still up for discussion?)

[ghost]

For reference ipfs/specs#152 (comment)

[lidel]

Thanks, I've updated label to:

That being said, extension is more liberal at the moment and both :/ and :// work fine for all schemes (requests are normalized to HTTP URL and redirected to public/local gateway).

Is that okay, or should we explicitly only support ipfs://$cid, ipns://$peerid and dweb:/ipfs/$cid?

Should fs: be removed?

[ghost]

Is that okay, or should we explicitly only support ipfs://$cid, ipns://$peerid and dweb:/ipfs/$cid?

Better only support what's explicitly supported. Otherwise someone will start using it and we eventually 1) break people's stuff when we remove that implicit support, or 2) have to actually continue supporting it.

Should fs: be removed?

Yeah can drop fs: