W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-security@w3.org > March 2010

Re: Seeking Comments on Powerbox

From: Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 10:32:36 -0800
Message-ID: <5691356f1003041032q3ed3ed31i69b2a5ad1d2dd1ce@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-web-security@w3.org, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>>> The use of <input type="file"> in this spec is out of line with HTML5 in
>>> a
>>> number of ways

I wasn't expecting this resistance to the use of the <input
type="file"> element. My reading of both HTML4 and your HTML5
references is that the Powerbox use could fit within the defined and
expected meaning of the file control element and its attributes. It
also seemed natural that a file picker should be extended to allow
selection of remote files, in addition to local ones. Without this
functionality, I expect the file control element to fade into disuse.
But rather than spend time arguing the merits of this case, perhaps
it's easier to choose another place to hook the Powerbox into web

There are two places where the Powerbox needs to collect information
from a web page: when a Customer page makes a requisition, and when a
page offers a Provider. The requisition could conceivable be done in
JavaScript, such as window.powerbox.request(...). Would that kind of
API free the Powerbox of any objections from HTML5? For the Provider
offer, the page just needs some way to tell the user-agent about the
Provider URL. All other metadata about the Provider can then be
directly fetched from the Provider using the Provider URL. May I use
rel="Provider" without HTML5 objection, or should I also use a
JavaScript API, such as window.powerbox.offer(providerURL).


"Waterken News: Capability security on the Web"
Received on Thursday, 4 March 2010 18:33:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:26:17 UTC