- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 10:24:31 -0500
On 12/1/10 3:16 AM, Philip J?genstedt wrote: > No, <img> was on the list of inlines where javascript: URL execution was > explicitly blocked. Ah, ok. Gotcha. > Someone who manages to install a working Java plugin might want to test > this. It doesn't seem like it could be a compat issue to me. Agreed. > Do you do that just for inlines, or also when navigating to javascript: > URLs? If it's both, then that's something we'd need to standardize, > unless all browsers already do the same. It's both in Gecko. We really do try to keep the number of special-cases to a minimum. ;) I agree that we probably need to standardize this, because I fully expect web sites to depend on the ISO-8859-1 bit when all the charcodes are < 255. > Indeed, so the question is just what the compat constraints are. Well, no. There's the question of what's least confusing for authors too; see my other mail about that in this thread. > Right, these aren't inlines, in Opera terminology at least. As far as I > can see the spec agrees on this, as frames/iframes have their own > browsing contexts. So do <object>s, sometimes, right? -Boris
Received on Wednesday, 1 December 2010 07:24:31 UTC