18

It seems like the engine completely breaks all links that use a URI with a scheme other than 'http' or 'https'. Web != Internet, guys! ;)

For example, the market scheme links to the Android market:
market://details?id=com.google.zxing.client.android (<-- if it worked, you'd see a link here)

I can also think of a number of relevant schemes for the Gaming SE, e.g. the steam scheme:
steam://store/400/ (<-- if it worked, you'd see a link here)
And various smaller ones which are specific to certain games to install mods, add-ons, etc.

And here's a real life example: Android SE: Is there a good app for monitoring the amount of data traffic? If this link wasn't broken, I could just click it and my phone would start installing the app or show the search results.

1
  • Looking at your post source, for completeness, I should mention that this doesn't work with either the inline or referential link syntax.
    – Jon Seigel
    Nov 28, 2010 at 16:56

1 Answer 1

6

We don't support any URIs other than ones we have whitelisted, which is http, https, and ftp.

8
  • 4
    Yes, that's my complaint. URI schemes are a great way to bridge over from the web to the other parts of the internet. It's a shame that this isn't supported by the SE platform. Nov 29, 2010 at 8:14
  • 7
    Is there a reason why these schemas are blessed, as opposed to others? Nevermind TinyURL does cross-schema redirections -- a good thing, if you ask me.
    – badp
    Nov 29, 2010 at 9:11
  • 1
    @radp: Of course this a) makes people less likely do link to other schemes when it makes sense (a bad thing) and it b) hides the actual link target from the reader (a very bad thing). Dec 3, 2010 at 0:11
  • 1
    This is indeed, frustrating. Plenty of times I have wanted SO to refer me to somewhere for live help, which is usually on an IRC channel somewhere. I don't see why irc can't be in this whitelist also. May 24, 2013 at 0:35
  • 3
    Is there a chance to see this being mentioned in the documentation? Dec 14, 2013 at 15:24
  • @tudor, if the solution of your question refers you to some live help, then that is useless for any future visitor. Good chance the question is off topic then. For questions and answers, I don't see why IRC should be whitelisted.
    – Arjan
    Dec 14, 2013 at 17:06
  • 8
    Can we have this answer revised? It feels more like an authoritative statement of policy and not so much like an explanation or line of reasoning. From a technical perspective, SO doesn't need to "support" the URI, the browsing software does. Dec 16, 2013 at 2:58
  • 3
    Can we have an explanation as to why "We don't support any URIs other than ones we have whitelisted, which is http, https, and ftp."? Dec 16, 2017 at 12:14

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .