- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:09:33 -0800
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@chromium.org>, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mozilla.com>
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com> wrote: >> Until we can agree on this, Type 2 feels like an attractive nuisance and, on >> reflection, one that I think we should punt to compilers like caja in the >> interim. If toolkits need it, I'd like to understand those use-cases from >> experience. > > I think Maciej explains fairly well in > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/1364.html > why it's good to have. Also, Type 2 can be used for built-in elements, > which I thought was one of the things we are trying to solve here. Stay after class and write 100 times on the board: "Type 2 is not a security boundary". ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 13 February 2014 18:10:28 UTC