On Feb 4, 2008 9:50 AM, Peter Svensson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's a fairly good discussion here;
http://extjs.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-4047.html...
Thanks, I'll have a look!
...Another tack (I think Google did this last year in response to a phishing
Cross-domain trick for gmail)
On Feb 4, 2008 9:20 AM, Peter Svensson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...If you/we use JSON, I might also suggest to wrap
it in an error-inducing layer, to be stripped by the client before eval(),
to avoid JavaScript Cross-domain snooping
Do you have a suggestion for this error inducing layer?
Hi,
On Feb 4, 2008 9:49 AM, David Nuescheler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...(1) since we are handling responses to POSTs that have to be both
machine readable and human readable and even more importantly
has to be handled gracefully by both XHR and regular browser POST
the default response needs
Hi all,
Thanks for your replies. So I will take that route and modify the
Sling-213 patch as described (notably the *[ext] variant).
Further, I close SLING-126 as won't fix as it is superceded by
SLING-213.
Regards
Felix
Am Montag, den 04.02.2008, 09:49 +0100 schrieb David Nuescheler:
Hi
hi,
i've discussed this with david extensively and since he was the
inventor of the ujax (former rjax) protocol he thinks now that the
proposal to use the referer as default redirect is not useful.
it was also david that proposed the html response which is of a format
that it is human (browser
