Should the client announce the schema it supports in URI's

[dbaeumer]

Server are allowed to send URI back which might not have a file or other well known schema. These URI's might not be handled correctly by the client.

Should the client announce it's handled schemas to the server and inform the server about any schema handler changes?

[david-driscoll]

I was just thinking about the same thing and made an initial proposal at #336, however it still needs the proposal implementation.

[dbaeumer]

@david-driscoll thanks for #336.

The issue is about whether the client should announce which schemas it supports. They maust not necessarily be surfaced by the server but with our proposal could.

[laughedelic]

Related issue: atom/ide-java#42

Some other language servers (e.g. ENSIME and Scalameta) use this workaround too: create a temporary file with the content of that URI and redirect to it.

It would be nice if the client could declare that it can handle given URI schema, so that the server can decide whether to use a workaround or send the true URI.

[rchl]

Assuming that the client would announce support for the zip: scheme, for example, how could there be a guarantee that all editors handle that schema in the same way? I don't think there is any specification on how to handle a zip: scheme specifically.