- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 16:12:58 -0800
- To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@chromium.org>, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mozilla.com>
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote: > On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 19:09:33 +0100, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> >>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com> >>>> Until we can agree on this, Type 2 feels like an attractive nuisance >>>> and, onreflection, one that I think we should punt to compilers like >>>> >>>> caja in the interim. If toolkits need it, I'd like to understand those >>>> use-cases from experience. >>> >>> I think Maciej explains fairly well in >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/1364.html >>> why it's good to have. Also, Type 2 can be used for built-in elements, >>> which I thought was one of the things we are trying to solve here. >> >> Stay after class and write 100 times on the board: "Type 2 is not a >> security boundary". > > This is not appropriate on this email list. Sorry, it was meant to be a playful response to Anne, and as I know him personally and consider him a friend, I assumed he'd take it in kind. (Based on his reaction in IRC, I think he did.) ~TJ
Received on Friday, 14 February 2014 00:13:46 UTC