- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 14:42:31 -0700
- To: "SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)" <BS3131@att.com>
- Cc: arun@mozilla.com, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, public-device-apis@w3.org, Ian Fette <ifette@google.com>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:24 PM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) <BS3131@att.com> wrote: > Arun, > > The basic concern I have is with the notion of "browsers" as the only > Web context and use-case that matters. The browser-based model for API > integration view (as I understand your position) is that the user must > be actively involved in every significant action, and choose explicitly > the actions that enable integration with browser-external resources > (including local and remote). Step back and you will see the > inconsistency in that (what would Ajax be if the user had to approved > every HTTP API request via an <input> element?). The similarity between AJAX and the use-cases we're discussing is thin. XHR is the page communicating back with its origin server, and is security-wise in roughly the same category as a script adding an <img> to a page (the <img> sends a script-crafted request back to the server and receives data back). Interacting directly with the user's file system is a substantially more security-conscious action. Involving the user in the action, at least minimalloy, appears to be a common-sense good idea to mitigate the possibility of attacks. The decisions in this arena have been highly informed by security considerations specific to the particular cases being discussed. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 15 June 2010 21:43:26 UTC