- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:24:55 -0700
On Aug 31, 2010, at 4:16 PM, Kornel Lesi?ski wrote: > On 31.08.2010, at 23:39, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > >>>>> At least as currently drafted, srcdoc is not a security feature. It's a >>>>> convenience feature. It is also designed to work well in tandem with a >>>>> particular security feature (sandbox). But by itself, it is not a security >>>>> feature. >>>> >>>> Data URLs already provide this. >>> >>> What about existing UAs that implement data: URIs, but not sandbox? >> >> What about them? >> >> (Remember, the context of the "use data urls" suggestion was to solve >> the minority use-case of wanting to fill an <iframe> without a network >> request, without triggering sandboxing.) > > Yes, it's OK for data without sandboxing. However, "inline data without sandboxing" does not cover all use cases of srcdoc. There's another use case of "inline data _with_ sandboxing and fallback for HTML4 UAs", for which data: URI currently cannot provide. > > My point is that data: URIs provide only half of srcdoc functionality, and if srcdoc is supposed to be dropped in favor of data: URI, then the other use case needs to be taken into account as well. You can use sandboxing with a data: URI by also specifying the "sandbox" attribute. As currently specified, srcdoc is almost entirely syntactic sugar. Regards, Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 31 August 2010 16:24:55 UTC