- From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:37:09 -0800
- To: Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "Art.Barstow@nokia.com" <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>, "bhill@paypal-inc.com" <bhill@paypal-inc.com>, "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>, "bsterne@mozilla.com" <bsterne@mozilla.com>
[Changing the subject as this relates to future changes to the document after FPWD.] On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com> wrote: > However, we’d like to see the sandbox directive spec’d somewhere (as it used > to be in the 1.0 draft). Ideally, that’d be in the 1.0 publication. But if > there’s no consensus to do so, then I’d like to see it in a draft for 1.1. > I think we know what we want to spec, it’s just a matter of writing it up. > > Here’s my suggestion. Rather than spending time to spin up a 1.1 document, > can we add sandbox back to the current 1.0 draft? The concerns for doing so > at TPAC seemed to be around feasibility to implement (I didn’t hear much > pushback on the feature itself). Generally speaking, CR is the appropriate > time to remove a feature if it can’t get implemented. So I’d prefer we be > optimistic and keep it in for now and then see how things go as we progress > along. If at CR it is at-risk to block progress on the spec, we can consider > moving it out to the 1.1 spec. Thoughts? That seems fine. We'll probably want to include an "issue" paragraph warning that the feature might get removed and with a link to the issue tracker. Adam
Received on Tuesday, 15 November 2011 20:38:11 UTC