Anne van Kesteren:
The example for [Undefined] should probably say [Null=Null,
Undefined=Null] because just saying [Undefined=Null] doesn't make much
sense.
Because why would you want undefined to map to null, but null to map to
null? Or because undefined would map to null, which then
On Thu, 22 May 2008 13:22:50 +0200, Cameron McCormack [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Anne van Kesteren:
The example for [Undefined] should probably say [Null=Null,
Undefined=Null] because just saying [Undefined=Null] doesn't make much
sense.
Because why would you want undefined to map to null,
Ian Hickson wrote:
Summary:
* I've added a sandbox= attribute to iframe, which by default
disables a number of features and takes a space-separated list of
features to re-enable:
[snip list]
Unless I'm missing something, this attribute is useless in practice
because legacy browsers
Do you need to flag readonly attributes with [Null]/[Undefined] as well or
does it suffice there that it is clear from the description of the
attribute? I've assumed for now that it is clear from the definition what
needs to be returned and that they do not need special annotations.
--
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Do you need to flag readonly attributes with [Null]/[Undefined] as well
or does it suffice there that it is clear from the description of the
attribute? I've assumed for now that it is clear from the definition
what needs to be returned and that they do not need
FYI - We have had some discussion in and around the topic of better iframes
at OpenAjax Alliance:
http://www.openajax.org/runtime/wiki/Better_IFrames_Better_Sandboxing
However, people see shortcomings with all proposals listed on that page.
Our hope was that the HTML5 leaders would figure out a
Legacy browsers will use @SRC which must be filtered. They will ignore the
new content (whatever the attribute name will be) altogether so it need not
be filtered. Fallback @SRC can contain a URL to an error page saying Sorry,
not in your browser.
Chris
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
Ian Hickson wrote:
- by default, content in sandboxed browsing contexts, and any
browsing contexts nested in them
How do those nested browsing contexts come about, given that later you say:
- content in those browsing contexts cannot create new browsing
contexts or
1. Nested browsing contexts in a sandboxed frame cannot be created
dynamically but they can be defined by the inner markup.
2. If the frame is not allowed to execute scripts, setting location to
script should have no effect.
3. There is a potential discrepancy between applying parent width, which
Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
1. Nested browsing contexts in a sandboxed frame cannot be created
dynamically but they can be defined by the inner markup.
There was no mention of dynamically in Ian's proposal. My assumption
was that cannot create browsing contexts meant just that. If it
Anne van Kesteren:
The example for [Undefined] should probably say [Null=Null,
Undefined=Null] because just saying [Undefined=Null] doesn't make much
sense.
Cameron McCormack:
Because why would you want undefined to map to null, but null to map to
null?
Anne van Kesteren:
Yeah, that's
Anne van Kesteren:
If I have
x(in DOMString y);
x(in Document y);
do I need to put [Null=Null, Undefined=Null] in front of in DOMString
or will this work correctly automatically?
I still need to fix up the text for [[Put]] on host objects to make that
exactly clear, but I imagine
Anne van Kesteren:
Do you need to flag readonly attributes with [Null]/[Undefined] as well
or does it suffice there that it is clear from the description of the
attribute? I've assumed for now that it is clear from the definition
what needs to be returned and that they do not need
13 matches
Mail list logo
