Re: Issue 100 Zero-Edits Counter Proposal

On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>> I disagree it's irrelevant.
>>
>> For instance, the fact that people who were supposed to be the target
>> audience of sandboxing aren't interested may indicate that we should
>> consider to reduce the "badness" of the sandbox proposal, by killing a very
>> specific part of it, but keeping the rest.
>
> Ah, now that's relevant in the vein that I mentioned, where it may not
> be useful to reduce network requests, for example if the sandbox
> security model is only going to be used in places where a network
> request is required anyway (such as for serving ads).
>

Interesting how another person saying the same thing I am is suddenly
understandable. Perhaps we don't speak the same language. Or perhaps
communication is failing another way.

I'm assuming that there are more use cases, and more target
communities, for sandboxing other than just weblogging comments and
webloggers. However, the only purpose given for srcdoc was weblogging
comments and webloggers, and that was the only one I addressed. I
don't feel comfortable speaking for an entire community of people, but
I believe that Matt Mullenweg's response,  recorded in the change
proposal, was a good indicator that the community isn't interested,
and is very unlikely to use the attribute.

Now, others may think all of sandboxing is bad, but they should submit
a bug, accordingly.

> I've provided my reasons as to why I think that isn't necessarily a
> strong argument against, though.
>

That the srcdoc attribute is unlikely to be used, seems to me, to be
an irrefutable argument.

> Thanks, Julian.
>
> ~TJ
>

Shelley

Shelley

Received on Wednesday, 14 April 2010 05:00:12 UTC