- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 01:57:26 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13230
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC| |ian@hixie.ch
Resolution| |WONTFIX
--- Comment #7 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 2011-08-10 01:57:26 UTC ---
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are
satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If
you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please
reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML
Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest
title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue
yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:
http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html
Status: Rejected
Change Description: no spec change
Rationale: We don't have to sandbox all media types. HTML and XML are the only
ones that are problematic, and XML doesn't yet have realistic use cases here
(and could in the future be easily addressed by a separate sandboxing type for
XML — I'll let the XML community worry about that).
The reason for having this type is so that someone can host an HTML file
sandboxed in an iframe, yet still be safe from hostile people pointing their
users at unsandboxed iframes pointing at that document. There's no reason to
have the "allow-*" keywords here, they'll be on the iframe.
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 10 August 2011 01:57:32 UTC