W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2010

Re: <iframe doc="">

From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:47:00 +0000
Message-ID: <7789133a1001250747g5d962f88kd8ad9d63943cbcce@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Lars Gunther <gunther@keryx.se>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote:
>> The use case I think is most important for @sandbox is advertising, as
>> discussed in some of my earlier emails to the whatwg list.  Apologies
>> for splitting the discussion over multiple lists.  I know it can be
>> hard to follow if you're not subscribed to all of them.
>
> It would help if you provide links to these discussions?

There was an extensive discussion.  You might start with the threads
linked from this page:

http://www.google.com/search?q=barth+sandbox+whatwg

> No, I never follow
> the WhatWG email list. I do search it when I put together change proposals,
> but generally don't follow it. I'm assuming that any change that impacts on
> the W3C will be documented, either directly or via link, in the W3C email
> lists.

In general, that's not a valid assumption for HTML5.  Discussion about
the spec takes place in many forums (fora?).  I tend to send most of
my technical feedback on the spec to the whatwg list because there's a
higher technical content to process ratio there.

Adam
Received on Monday, 25 January 2010 15:47:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:13 UTC