- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:58:48 -0700
On Aug 30, 2010, at 11:27 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs at apple.com> wrote: >> >> On Aug 30, 2010, at 10:02 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> >>> While talking with the implementor of @srcdoc in Webkit, it came up >>> that, though @srcdoc is *designed* for use with @sandbox, the author >>> still has to explicitly add @sandbox to the <iframe> or else they >>> don't get the sandbox security model. >>> >>> Can we make this automatic? Specifically, when <iframe >>> srcdoc=foo></iframe> is specified (without @sandbox), it drops into >>> the sandbox security model as if <iframe sandbox srcdoc=foo></iframe> >>> was used. If @sandbox is explicitly added, its value is instead used, >>> so the author can set the sandbox security flags if desired. >>> >>> This would mean that there is no way for an author to use @srcdoc >>> *without* sandboxing. This appears to be a minority use-case in the >>> first place (as far as I can tell, it's pretty much just useful for >>> testing purposes), but the author can always use a data: url in that >>> case. >> >> I think it's better to let these remain orthogonal features. In general I think it is a net negative to usability when Feature A implicitly turns on Feature B. Implicit relationships like this make the Web platform more confusing. > > While I agree with you in general, in this particular case I cannot. > @srcdoc wasn't designed as an orthogonal feature - it was explicitly > built with @sandbox in mind, to allow authors to shove generic content > into the sandbox without incurring a network request. It has only > niche technical use outside the context of @sandbox. Should @seamless imply @sandbox too, then? Regards, Maciej
Received on Monday, 30 August 2010 13:58:48 UTC