- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 21:16:32 +0200
- To: "Tyler Close" <tyler.close@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>, "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "Adam Barth" <w3c@adambarth.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Somehow this arrived late in my inbox :/ On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:29:25 +0200, Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com> wrote: > I think there are two main reasons: > > 1. ADsafe, Caja and others provide finer grained control over what the > widget can do. Could you elaborate on that? > 2. All ads/widgets are fetched by the same HTTP request that fetches > the containing page. The overhead of a separate iframe per ad/widget > was too much for the expected use-cases. This hasn't been done yet but the idea is to add a document="" (or some such) attribute to <iframe> that takes a string of markup to be rendered in a sandboxed way which should take away this concern. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2009 19:17:19 UTC