Re: [clipboard] Add RTF to the "mandatory data types" list?

[Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen]

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 11:01 PM James M. Greene 
wrote:

>> That behavior is really all I wanted, i.e. "don't let the browser
>> discard/ignore valid RTF clipboard data".

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Daniel Cheng  wrote:
> I don't think I would feel comfortable with allowing web pages to place
> unsanitized RTF in the system clipboard. This would allow webapps to trigger
> exploits such as CVE-2014-1761.

Just to conclude here: I've been convinced that the possibility of
targeting exploits at local applications are too severe to allow JS to
write stuff labelled as RTF to clipboards. The plan is that RTF will
be considered a "custom" type so scripts can set (and get) RTF data,
but native applications will not see said data if they look for "RTF"
content on the clipboard.

I have not entirely made up my mind on how exposing RTF that other
applications have written to the clipboard to JS will work (the
"paste" / "read from clipboard" use case), but I think we'll just
expose it as usual in the items list with the RTF MIME type.
-Hallvord

RE: Republish Pointer Lock as CR

[Travis Leithead]

+1 in favor of supporting a republishing as CR.

-Original Message-
From: Léonie Watson [mailto:t...@tink.uk] 
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 9:13 AM
To: 'public-webapps WG' 
Subject: CFC: Republish Pointer Lock as CR

Hello WP,

This is a Call For Consensus (CFC) to request that W3C republish Pointer Lock 
as a Candidate Recommendation (CR). Extensions to the MouseEventInit Dictionary 
[1] constitute substantive changes to the specification that were made after 
the current CR was published in 2013 [2].

Please reply to this CFC no later than 21st June 2016. Positive responses are 
preferred and supporting comments (beyond just +1) are encouraged, but silence 
will be considered as consent.

Thank you.

Léonie on behalf of the WP chairs and team, and Pointer Lock editor.
[1] 
https://w3c.github.io/pointerlock/#extensions-to-the-mouseeventinit-dictionary
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/CR-pointerlock-20131217/
--
@LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem

CFC: Republish Pointer Lock as CR

[Léonie Watson]

Hello WP,

This is a Call For Consensus (CFC) to request that W3C republish Pointer
Lock as a Candidate Recommendation (CR). Extensions to the MouseEventInit
Dictionary [1] constitute substantive changes to the specification that were
made after the current CR was published in 2013 [2].

Please reply to this CFC no later than 21st June 2016. Positive responses
are preferred and supporting comments (beyond just +1) are encouraged, but
silence will be considered as consent.

Thank you.

Léonie on behalf of the WP chairs and team, and Pointer Lock editor.
[1]
https://w3c.github.io/pointerlock/#extensions-to-the-mouseeventinit-dictiona
ry 
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/CR-pointerlock-20131217/ 
-- 
@LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem

RE: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

[Léonie Watson]

Hello WP,

This CFC passed with many expressions of support. Thank you to everyone who
responded and gave feedback.

Léonie on behalf of the WP chairs and team, and HTML editors


> -Original Message-
> From: Léonie Watson [mailto:t...@tink.uk]
> Sent: 02 June 2016 13:48
> To: 'public-webapps WG' 
> Subject: CFC: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)
> 
> Hello WP,
> 
> This is a call for consensus to request that W3C publish the current HTML
> Working Draft (WD) as a Candidate Recommendation (CR). It has been
> posted to public-webapps@w3.org as the official email for this WG.
> 
> Please reply to this thread on public-webapps@w3.org  no later than end of
> day on 10 June. Positive responses are preferred and encouraged, silence
> will be considered as assent.
> 
> The current HTML5.1 WD [1] improves upon HTML5. It includes updates that
> make it more reliable, more readable and understandable, and a better
> match for reality. Substantial changes between HTML5 and HTML5.1 can be
> found in the spec [2].
> 
> When a specification moves to CR it triggers a Call For Exclusions, per
section
> 4 of the W3C Patent Policy [3]. No substantive additions can be made to a
> specification in CR without starting a new Call for Exclusions, so we will
put
> HTML5.1 into "feature freeze". It is possible to make editorial updates as
> necessary, and features marked "At Risk" may be removed if found not to be
> interoperable.
> 
> The following features are considered "at risk". If we cannot identify at
least
> two shipping implementations, they will be marked "at risk" in the CR and
> may be removed from the Proposed Recommendation.
> 
> keygen element. [issue 43]
> label as a reassociatable element [issue 109] Fixing requestAnimationFrame
> to 60Hz, not implementation-defined [issues 159/375/422]
> registerContentHandler [Issue 233] inputmode attribute of the input
> element [issue 269] autofill of form elements [issue 372] menu, menuitem
> and context menus. [issue 373] dialog element [issue 427] Text tracks
> exposing in-band metadata best practices [Issue 461] datetime and
> datatime-local states of the input element [Issue 462]
> 
> Please share implementation details for any of these features on Github.
To
> mark other features "at risk", please identify them by 10th June (ideally
by
> filing an issue and providing a test case).
> 
> At the same time we move HTML5.1 into CR, we plan to continue updating
> the Editor's Draft, and in the next few weeks we expect to post a Call for
> Consensus to publish it as the First Public Working Draft of HTML5.2, so
> improving HTML will continue without a pause. It also means that changes
> that didn't make it into
> HTML5.1 will not have long to wait before being incorporated into the
> specification.
> 
> Léonie on behalf of the WP chairs and team, and HTML editors.
> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/html51/
> [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/html51/changes.html#changes
> [3] https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Exclusion
> 
> [issue 43] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/43
> [issue 109] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/109
> [issues 159/375/422] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/159 and links
> [issue 233] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/233
> [issue 269] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/269
> [issue 372] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/372
> [issue 373] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/373
> [issue 427] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/427
> [Issue 461] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/461
> [Issue 462] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/462
> 
> 
> --
> @LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem
> 
> 
>