- From: Kit Grose <kit@iqmultimedia.com.au>
- Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 05:24:50 +0000
On 21/08/2010, at 3:21 PM, Adam Barth wrote: > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert at ocallahan.org> wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: >>> One comment: Rather than adding an "allowfullscreen" attribute on >>> <iframe>, I would suggest just assuing that sandboxed content (i.e. >>> content of iframes with the sandbox="" attribute) can't go fullscreen. I >>> can provide a sandbox flag for this state. If we think there are use cases >>> for allowing sandboxed iframes to go fullscreen, then I can also add a >>> keyword that turns off the flag when present (like "allow-scripts" does >>> for scripts). (I'm assuming there are no cases for disabling fullscreen >>> for unsandboxed iframes; are there?) >> >> What about legacy content that doesn't use "sandbox"? It might expect >> cross-origin IFRAMEs to not be able to take over its window, but if the >> IFRAME content goes fullscreen, it effectively can. >> >> I think allowing subframes to go fullscreen should always be opt-in. > > How is going fullscreen different from opening a popup window? > > Adam It's the same document *in the same state* as it was in when you triggered "fullscreen". You would expect fullscreen on a video or animation not to start that video or animation from the beginning or reload it. ?Kit
Received on Friday, 20 August 2010 22:24:50 UTC