- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 07:17:57 -0500
- To: public-html@w3.org
On 12/14/2011 06:03 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com > <mailto:Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>> wrote: > > We'd prefer this issue resolved now rather than later. I've gone > ahead and written the change proposal (it seemed like the easiest > way to give a detailed answer your questions). Included in it is an > in depth explanation of: > > * Our implementation details > * Example real world scenarios for the keyword > * Customer requests for the keyword > * Other implementers that are implementing our proposal > > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/sandbox_allow_popups > > I'm happy to retract the escalation if we can make the change by > amicable resolution. > > I am happy to apply the above proposal (indeed I reopened the bug > recently because we now have two implementations, and the reason I had > marked the bug LATER was lack of implementation experience). It would be > good if it could be made clear that I would still be able to fix up > minor details later. In particular, this part of the spec is likely to > need refactoring soon to make it easier to reference from the CSP > specification. Purely an editorial matter, but it would likely involve > changing the wording for all the keywords, including 'allow-popups'. The > black-box normative aspects wouldn't be affected. "Minor details" and "editorial matters" tend to be in the eye of the beholder. If you see a need to make such changes, I encourage you to post such here for discussion before making those changes. > -- > Ian Hickson - Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 15 December 2011 12:18:27 UTC