Bitcoin-Qt handling of non-BTC bitcoin: URIs

[Luke-Jr]

Per the old bitcoin: URI scheme, amounts should specify a unit. The current implementation of bitcoin-qt, however, only correctly handles amounts as BTC without a unit. What would be the ideal behaviour, in the community consensus, when encountering a URI that does specify a unit? (recall that the user opening these URIs is not the same person who created them)

Example URIs with units:

• bitcoin:13zwAvAdFWC9hPPKPbuSRo3AQDSDpvQZVr?amount=5x8 (5 BTC)
• bitcoin:13zwAvAdFWC9hPPKPbuSRo3AQDSDpvQZVr?amount=5x5 (5 mBTC)
• bitcoin:13zwAvAdFWC9hPPKPbuSRo3AQDSDpvQZVr?amount=5x2 (5 μBTC)
• bitcoin:13zwAvAdFWC9hPPKPbuSRo3AQDSDpvQZVr?amount=x8x4 (8 TBC)
• bitcoin:13zwAvAdFWC9hPPKPbuSRo3AQDSDpvQZVr?amount=x8x8 (8 ᵇTBC)

[Stephen Gornick]

Per the old bitcoin: URI scheme, amounts should specify a unit. The current implementation of bitcoin-qt, however, only correctly handles amounts as BTC without a unit. What would be the ideal behaviour, in the community consensus, when encountering a URI that does specify a unit?

Previously I had suggested a units=  (e.g., units=mbtc), but there were reasonable arguments as to why that was not a good solution:
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6206.msg91910#msg91910

[Luke-Jr]

Per the old bitcoin: URI scheme, amounts should specify a unit. The current implementation of bitcoin-qt, however, only correctly handles amounts as BTC without a unit. What would be the ideal behaviour, in the community consensus, when encountering a URI that does specify a unit?

Previously I had suggested a units=  (e.g., units=mbtc), but there were reasonable arguments as to why that was not a good solution:
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6206.msg91910#msg91910

Yes, that's why the URIs specify the units in a descriptive form rather than symbolic.