Skip to content

Allow for specifying schema in "proxy"#1937

Open
sadym-chromium wants to merge 4 commits into
masterfrom
sadym/proxy-3
Open

Allow for specifying schema in "proxy"#1937
sadym-chromium wants to merge 4 commits into
masterfrom
sadym/proxy-3

Conversation

@sadym-chromium

@sadym-chromium sadym-chromium commented Dec 23, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Yet another approach for #1922 addressing #1920


Preview | Diff


This change is Reviewable

@sadym-chromium sadym-chromium marked this pull request as draft December 23, 2025 15:13
@sadym-chromium sadym-chromium marked this pull request as ready for review February 17, 2026 13:02

@whimboo whimboo left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As it looks like this PR doesn't yet address the comment from #1920 (comment) for Safari.

While this looks way more flexible I'm not sure which of these provided alternatives are actually the best. It might be good to get at least consensus about that.

Comment thread index.html
<a><code>proxyType</code></a> is "<code>manual</code>".
<td>A <a>valid proxy per protocol specifiers</a> mutually exclusive with other
scheme-specific proxy configurations ("<code>httpProxy</code>",
"<code>sslProxy</code>", "<code>socksProxy</code>").

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We probably should have a processing algorithm as for other parts of the spec to actually enforce mutual exclusivity with httpProxy/sslProxy/socksProxy, validate incoming values, or handle unknown/unsupported schemes. Without this, implementations have no normative guidance on what to do.

Comment thread index.html
"default": {
"host": "proxy.example.com",
"port": 443,
"protocol": "socks5"

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If an implementation (e.g. Safari) cannot route "https" traffic through a SOCKS5 proxy, there is no specified error code or behavior.

Comment thread index.html
</tr>

<tr>
<td><code>port</code>

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Many proxy protocols have well-known default ports. Making port mandatory is stricter than any existing proxy field. Should we have it optional?

Comment thread index.html
</pre>

<p>A <a>proxy per protocol specifiers</a> is considered to be a
<dfn>valid proxy per protocol specifiers</dfn>, if each of it's

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
<dfn>valid proxy per protocol specifiers</dfn>, if each of it's
<dfn>valid proxy per protocol specifiers</dfn>, if each of its

Comment thread index.html

<p>A <a>proxy per protocol specifiers</a> is considered to be a
<dfn>valid proxy per protocol specifiers</dfn>, if each of it's
<a>own property</a> is a non-empty <a>String</a>, and each of it's keys is a

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
<a>own property</a> is a non-empty <a>String</a>, and each of it's keys is a
<a>own property</a> is a non-empty <a>String</a>, and each of its keys is a

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants