- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 22:42:21 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13032 --- Comment #3 from Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3cbug@gmail.com> 2011-06-23 22:42:21 UTC --- Our focus here is really websites that are meant to be usable on all browsers, not content that's intended to be used only by specific computers. Your use-case doesn't *need* standardization, although it would make life easier for you -- you could conceivably write a browser extension, for instance. So it's unlikely that a solution would be accepted here if it's not suitable for general-purpose web use. What this ideally means is we'd work out some way for plugins to tell the browser that they understand sandboxed iframes and will respect their constraints, and then we would say that browsers can only load such plugins. However, even for web uses it's true that sandbox becomes much less useful today if you can't load Flash. E.g., one major use-case is to sandbox ads, but ads are often Flash. So maybe as an alternative, to allow quicker adoption of sandbox, we could somehow allow authors to specify which plugins they want to allow? -- 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 Thursday, 23 June 2011 22:42:23 UTC