Re: [cors] ACTION-11 API use cases

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:00:35 +0100, Sean Hogan 
> <> wrote:
>> I don't think the presented XBL use case is valid:
>> "An XBL binding allows full access to the document it is bound to and 
>> therefore cross-origin XBL usage is prohibited. The resource sharing 
>> policy enables cross-origin XBL bindings. If the user is 
>> authenticated with the server that hosts the XBL widget it is 
>> possible to have a user-specific cross-origin  bindings."
>> I'm not sure whether "an XBL binding allows full access to the 
>> document it is bound to" is talking about accessing the DOM of the 
>> bound-document or the binding-document, but I don't think either case 
>> requires access-control.
>> I don't see where the XBL spec says that the bound-document must have 
>> access to the binding-document, so I don't understand why 
>> cross-origin restrictions would apply.
>> And I don't understand why we should prohibit the XBL binding having 
>> access to the bound-document. That's the whole point of XBL, and we 
>> already have the same situation with <script src>. If you don't trust 
>> the XBL bindings then don't reference them, just like with scripts.
> That example is based on
> and maybe some discussion with Ian regarding this. It's been a while.
> Does that help?
Ok, I can see that the use case is consistent with what is in the XBL 
spec. I prefer the following wording:

A XBL binding allows the document to which it is bound to have full 
access to the document in which it is defined; therefore cross-origin 
XBL usage is prohibited.

I disagree with the security context of a XBL document being the bound 
document, but that isn't relevant to this thread.

Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 04:43:56 UTC