Re: [w3c/editing] Seeking feedback on Clipboard Pickling APIs. (#334)

>> Tagging @mkruisselbrink to see if he has any concerns with what is suggested in the first point below:
>>
>>>@whsieh from Apple suggested that we write both the sanitized and unsanitized content all the time to the clipboard instead of requiring authors to declare they also want an unsanitized copy under the new pickled name. That seems like a good suggestion so @snianu can incorporate that into the explainer / upcoming pull request.
>>
>>If we are just writing the standard well known formats, then this approach sounds good to me. But, for custom pickled formats, we still need a way for the web authors to provide the custom format name. The unsanitized option can be used by the web authors to provide the name of the custom formats during write operation.
>
>What does this mean? MIME type specifies exactly what type a given format is.

Talked with @snianu offline and we agree that when writing specifying an `unsanitized` list isn't necessary.  Maybe a simple way to put it is:
1. When writing, everything will be put into the "pickle jar" unchanged from how the author supplied it.
2. Additionally, for every well-known format written, we will also produce a "sanitized copy" per usual.

@rniwa there's no objection to the first point as I've outlined it is there?

>>For read, I think it is better to have an unsanitized option as reading all the formats (both standard & custom) would be bad for perf reasons. So, in addition to CORS like approach, we should also provide unsanitized option, and both of these options would address security as well as perf concerns.
>
>We object to this proposal.

@rniwa can you clarify what part you are objecting to?  And why? :-)

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/editing/issues/334#issuecomment-918636787