Re: [whatwg] in

> On 7/21/11 11:51 PM, Mark Callow wrote: >> Seems like a bug in the whitelist filter to me. Shouldn't the filter be >> checking requests using the full URL just before they are dispatched? > > We're talking a filter on the HTML generation, not in the browser. > > -Boris Ahh! Got it. Thanks. -

Re: [whatwg] in

On 7/21/11 11:51 PM, Mark Callow wrote: Seems like a bug in the whitelist filter to me. Shouldn't the filter be checking requests using the full URL just before they are dispatched? We're talking a filter on the HTML generation, not in the browser. -Boris

Re: [whatwg] in

> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 05:07:05 +0200, Boris Zbarsky > wrote: >> That said, I'm not sure I understand the security concern. What kind >> of whitelist-based filter would let through

Re: [whatwg] in

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 7/19/11 9:12 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: >> >> Would other browser vendors be willing to change to only look at> href>  in? > > Gecko used to implement that back when the spec said it. > > This caused site compat issues.  See > https://bugzilla

Re: [whatwg] in

On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 16:54:25 +0200, Boris Zbarsky wrote: On 7/20/11 4:54 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 05:07:05 +0200, Boris Zbarsky wrote: That said, I'm not sure I understand the security concern. What kind of whitelist-based filter would let through

Re: [whatwg] in

On 7/20/11 4:54 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 05:07:05 +0200, Boris Zbarsky wrote: That said, I'm not sure I understand the security concern. What kind of whitelist-based filter would let through

Re: [whatwg] in

On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 05:07:05 +0200, Boris Zbarsky wrote: That said, I'm not sure I understand the security concern. What kind of whitelist-based filter would let through

Re: [whatwg] in

On 7/19/11 9:12 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: Would other browser vendors be willing to change to only look at in? Gecko used to implement that back when the spec said it. This caused site compat issues. See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=593807 (United checkin outside the US being

[whatwg] in

IE7 and up, in both quirks and non-quirks modes, ignores in the of a page. This is intended to protect against a situation where a whitelist-based content filter disallows all scripts but does not disallow , and the page contains a relative URL in a

Re: [whatwg] In AppCache web apps, images from unpredictable domains won't load

That sounds perfect, thanks. On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > I've made it so that you can specify "*" in the online whitelist section > to basically open it up to anything. > > -- > Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL > http://ln.hixi

[whatwg] In AppCache web apps, images from unpredictable domains won't load

On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Aaron Whyte wrote: > > When a page is loaded from an AppCache, even when online, external > resources such as images will not be loaded at all. If foo.com has an > image http://bar.com/img.png"; />, then according to the steps > in > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/curr

Re: [whatwg] In AppCache web apps, images from unpredictable domains won't load

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote: > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Aaron Whyte wrote: > >> When a page is loaded from an AppCache, even when online, external > resources > >> such as images will not be loaded at all. >

Re: [whatwg] In AppCache web apps, images from unpredictable domains won't load

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Aaron Whyte wrote: >> When a page is loaded from an AppCache, even when online, external resources >> such as images will not be loaded at all. >> If foo.com has an image http://bar.com/img.png"; />, then accord

Re: [whatwg] In AppCache web apps, images from unpredictable domains won't load

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > The workaround is for the gmail to download the images to gmails > servers and then serve them from a google domain. This isn't just an email problem. It'll also affect RSS readers, document editors, blogging tools, and other tools where

Re: [whatwg] In AppCache web apps, images from unpredictable domains won't load

Couple of comments... 1) Aaron's comment was not about caching them at all, it was about referring to them from a cached application and having them load via the network as usual. "Step 5" gets in the way of that. 2) The spec already allows for cross-origin caching, they can be explicitly listed

Re: [whatwg] In AppCache web apps, images from unpredictable domains won't load

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Aaron Whyte wrote: > When a page is loaded from an AppCache, even when online, external resources > such as images will not be loaded at all. > If foo.com has an image http://bar.com/img.png"; />, then according > to the steps in > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-ap

Re: [whatwg] In AppCache web apps, images from unpredictable domains won't load

Yup... the source of grief is... 6.9.7 Changes to the networking model5: Fail the resource load. The intent behind this was "making the testing of offline application easier". Given the unintended consequence Aaron brought up, we should probably revisit this. Maybe only fail to load the reso

Re: [whatwg] In AppCache web apps, images from unpredictable domains won't load

Not loading cross-domain images in e-mail messages is a standard privacy feature e.g. in Microsoft Outlook. (Indeed, that means that Microsoft Outlook does not allow any external images, only attachments). The workaround, to save as a HTML document and view in browser, should work. If the images

[whatwg] In AppCache web apps, images from unpredictable domains won't load

When a page is loaded from an AppCache, even when online, external resources such as images will not be loaded at all. If foo.com has an image http://bar.com/img.png"; />, then according to the steps in http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/offline.html#changesToNetworkingMode

Re: [whatwg] in "in body" insertion mode (8.2.5)

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Kartikaya Gupta wrote: > > "code" is listed in the formatting category of elements, but isn't dealt > with in the same way as other formatting elements when in the "in body" > insertion mode. Currently it will fall through to the "any other start > tag" case, so the note in

Re: [whatwg] in "in body" insertion mode (8.2.5)

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:10:41 +, Kartikaya Gupta wrote: > "code" is listed in the formatting category of elements, but isn't dealt with > in the same way as other > formatting elements when in the "in body" insertion mode. Currently it will > fall through to the "any > other start tag" cas

[whatwg] in "in body" insertion mode (8.2.5)

"code" is listed in the formatting category of elements, but isn't dealt with in the same way as other formatting elements when in the "in body" insertion mode. Currently it will fall through to the "any other start tag" case, so the note in that case that says "This element will be a phrasing e

Re: [whatwg] In correct HTML 5 tutorials

Per http://www.w3schools.com/about/about_refsnes.asp I see Ståle Refsnes as author of said tutorial. So let me forward this mail to them. http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2008-August/016159.html subscribe to list at http://lists.whatwg.org/listinfo.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org On Sun

Re: [whatwg] In correct HTML 5 tutorials

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008, Biju [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > http://www.w3schools.com/ is a very popular tutorial site. They have > already started tutorials for HTML5 > http://www.w3schools.com/tags/html5.asp > > I see errors > at http://www.w3schools.com/tags/html5_video.asp > and http://www.w3schoo

Re: [whatwg] In correct HTML 5 tutorials

On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 8:50 PM, Biju [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.w3schools.com/ is a very popular tutorial site. Yes, that is annoying. It's always at the top of the search result. w3schools has no relationship with the w3c. It is not the most reliable source of inf

[whatwg] In correct HTML 5 tutorials

http://www.w3schools.com/ is a very popular tutorial site. They have already started tutorials for HTML5 http://www.w3schools.com/tags/html5.asp I see errors at http://www.w3schools.com/tags/html5_video.asp and http://www.w3schools.com/tags/html5_audio.asp autoplay ==> true | false controls ==> t

Re: [whatwg] +/- in SGML DOCTYPE

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >[83.1] N/A because W3C is not an IDN. No, but “w3.org” is; and the point was to illustrate that whether the Owner Identifier used is registered or unregistered has nothing to do with whether the source is an officially re

Re: [whatwg] +/- in SGML DOCTYPE

[83.1] N/A because W3C is not an IDN. Dnia 16-12-2007, N o godzinie 00:49 +0100, Terje Bless pisze: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Geoffrey Sneddon) wrote: > > >ISO 8879:1989 states that SGML public text owner identifier registration > >(i.e., those that

Re: [whatwg] +/- in SGML DOCTYPE

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Geoffrey Sneddon) wrote: >ISO 8879:1989 states that SGML public text owner identifier registration >(i.e., those that start with a + instead of the unregistered -) is defined in >ISO 9070, which I don't have a copy of. I can, howeve

[whatwg] +/- in SGML DOCTYPE (was: Re: The truth about Nokias claims)

On 15 Dec 2007, at 12:52, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote: Krzysztof Żelechowski wrote: Dnia 14-12-2007, Pt o godzinie 19:47 +0100, Maik Merten pisze: Krzysztof Żelechowski schrieb: Remember the "-" in DOCTYPE HTML? Feel free to be more specific. That prefix means that HTML DOCTYPE is not issu

Re: [whatwg] "in caption" insertion mode

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:25:46 +0200, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sun, 10 Dec 2006, Anne van Kesteren wrote: The "Anything else" case should probably trigger a parse error before reprocessing the current token. Why? Could you show a sample of markup that would go through this path

Re: [whatwg] "in cell" should handle comments

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > I don't see why comments have to be processed as if they were "in body". > They should just be appended to the current node. Isn't that what happens if they're processed as if they were "in body"? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E

Re: [whatwg] "in caption" insertion mode

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > The "Anything else" case should probably trigger a parse error before > reprocessing the current token. Why? Could you show a sample of markup that would go through this path and should trigger an error that isn't flagged? -- Ian Hickson

Re: [whatwg] ' in text/html

On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote: > > > > > > Should "'" be a valid charater reference in text/html? If not, > > > what would be correct error handling? > > > > I went with making it valid, since it's valid in XML. > > That's problematic, because allowing it as a conforming entity refer

Re: [whatwg] in

Michel Fortin wrote: > The current spec only allows and inside , so the > markup for something like this would require closing each > time an action paragraph is added and reopening it afterward. > Wouldn't it make more sense to allow regular paragraphs in > for situational information

[whatwg] in

I read this text recently: and wondered how it could be marked up using . Basically, it's a fictional dialogue between two persons where once in a while the dialogue is interrupted by actions in separate paragraphs

[whatwg] "in cell" should handle comments

I don't see why comments have to be processed as if they were "in body". They should just be appended to the current node. -- Anne van Kesteren

Re: [whatwg] ' in text/html

On Mar 11, 2006, at 02:21, Ian Hickson wrote: On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Simon Pieters wrote: Should "'" be a valid charater reference in text/html? If not, what would be correct error handling? I went with making it valid, since it's valid in XML. That's problematic, because allowing it as a

Re: [whatwg] ' in text/html

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Simon Pieters wrote: > > Should "'" be a valid charater reference in text/html? If not, what > would be correct error handling? I went with making it valid, since it's valid in XML. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie

[whatwg] ' in text/html

Hi, I tested "'" in text/html[1][2]. The following browsers treat it as if it were "'": * Mozilla * Opera * Safari * Lynx * Konqueror The following browsers treat it as if it were "'": * Windows Internet Explorer 4.0 - 6.0 * Macintosh Internet Explorer 5.2 * Netscape Navigator 4.78 Sho