W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > August 2013

Re: [whatwg] Comments on <dialog>

From: Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 22:41:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CAO9Q3i+OLXXE-BXvFwua6wpxBda4SfZrWTvtUtF1WhixmqKUFw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Matt Falkenhagen <falken@chromium.org>, WHATWG <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> ...
> > > It's true that for seamless iframes we could change that, but the
> > > usual use case for seamless iframes is something like blog comments,
> > > so it's not clear that there's a use case for dialogs there. If there
> > > was to be one, we could consider it. It sounds like a lot of work to
> > > do if there's not a compelling need though.
> >
> > Hm, I was given to understand that it *was* intended that dialogs be
> > able to escape iframes through some mechanism.
> That isn't specced currently. I'm not 100% I understand how it would work
> (I guess it would need a lot of infrastructure from CSS?), but I'm happy
> to do it if there's demand and if the CSS side is figured out.
Matt and I discussed this and I don't think we need it anymore. I've also
discussed it with security folks and they're not super comfortable allowing
a nested iframe to show arbitrary content over the main frame. Specifically
this gives non-sandboxes iframes superpowers they didn't have before (so
we'd need a special new attribute) and we'd need to show info bars to
notify the user of the origin of the dialog... even then it's scary because
the content seen under the ::backdrop is from a different origin than the
dialog itself.

- E
Received on Thursday, 22 August 2013 05:43:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:09:23 UTC