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

[Bug 8725] text/sandboxed-html vs <iframe sandbox> and backcompat

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 04:01:54 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Ng9Cc-0001Wq-29@wiggum.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8725


Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |WONTFIX




--- Comment #2 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>  2010-02-13 04:01:53 ---
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are
satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If
you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please
reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML
Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest
title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue
yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:
   http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

Status: Rejected
Change Description: no spec change
Rationale: What Adam said.

I have no opinion on whether XML should be sandboxed; that seems out of scope
for this group. (If the XML or SVG groups want HTML5 to define a sandboxed type
for them, I'm happy to oblige, of course. I just don't want to step on toes
when it's not necessary for getting interop on existing features.)


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 13 February 2010 04:01:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:11 UTC