W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2008

Re: img issue: should we restrict the URI

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:32:50 +0100
To: "Jeff Schiller" <codedread@gmail.com>
Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.t5mx80p064w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 06:10:52 +0100, Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>  
wrote:
> In my opinion, I really think that these things should be considered
> within the context of the HTML WG since we are trying to define the
> expected behavior of the UA when encountering the html:img element
> (not the UA behavior when it encounters the svg:image element, which
> does not impose all these restrictions).

I thought the same thing was applicable to svg:image. Anyway, you didn't  
elaborate would be the right place given that the CSS properties  
'background-image', 'content', 'list-style-image', etc. will all do pretty  
much the same.


> Another question:  If the SVG file links to another external resource
> (for example, another SVG file), is this allowed when SVG is included
> via HTML's <img>?  What about external CSS, rasters?   What about
> foreignObject?  What does Opera do today?  Allow external references
> but script-neuter those external SVGs too?  Sorry for all the
> questions on this - yes, I should test this myself, just curious if
> any experts know already...

External resources are allowed. Scripts are obviously disabled there too.  
Any reference will mark the image as "unsafe" for <canvas> purposes if I  
remember correctly.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Monday, 28 January 2008 10:29:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:52 UTC