[Service Worker Registration] removed protocolIsInHTTPFamily and replaced with SchemeRegistry check

Source/platform/weborigin/SchemeRegistry.h

Index: Source/platform/weborigin/SchemeRegistry.h
diff --git a/Source/platform/weborigin/SchemeRegistry.h b/Source/platform/weborigin/SchemeRegistry.h
index cc3e8636c8f67a528dbe25e438f6e6ac6b954b8f..e85d2bbec88c2cfb7286074719622f4faf9349b4 100644
--- a/Source/platform/weborigin/SchemeRegistry.h
+++ b/Source/platform/weborigin/SchemeRegistry.h
@@ -87,6 +87,10 @@ public:
     // "Legacy" schemes (e.g. 'ftp:', 'gopher:') which we might want to treat differently from "webby" schemes.
     static bool shouldTreatURLSchemeAsLegacy(const String& scheme);
 
+    // Schemes that can register a service worker.
+    static void registerURLSchemeAsAllowingServiceWorkers(const String& scheme);
+    static bool shouldTreatURLSchemeAsAllowingServiceWorkers(const String& scheme);

[kinuko, 2015/06/25 05:26:36]

Having an API specific list added here slightly feels like a layering violation.
 Are these really only for ServiceWorker?  Or do we want to consider
chrome-extension as potentially trustworthy scheme for powerful new features?

https://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-security/prefer-secure-origins-for-pow...

[Devlin, 2015/06/25 15:26:15]

The original version of this patch leaned more towards that approach - checking
only that the origin was secure (SecurityOrigin::isSecure()), which
chrome-extension is already included in - but falken@ mentioned that that would
include other secure origins that we didn't want to allow service workers on
(e.g., blob, file, etc).

[Mike West, 2015/06/25 15:49:37]

Does this map to whether or not a scheme is CORS-enabled? It seems like it does.

+
     // Allow resources from some schemes to load on a page, regardless of its
     // Content Security Policy.
     // This enum should be kept in sync with public/web/WebSecurityPolicy.h.