Re: [whatwg] iframes, more sandbox

This sounds like an interesting idea, but I think it would quite easily get
out of hand if people wanted some options from More Strict but not all of
them, there would probably need to be a finer control of permissions.

~ Shane Hudson


On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Chris Coyier <chriscoyier@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey folks. Long time listener, first time caller.
>
> I'm hoping for more a little bit more control over <iframe>s. We have
> <iframe sandbox> which is pretty fantastic right now. I'd like to see some
> possibilities in both directions (more and less strict).
>
> More strict:
>  - Disallow modal dialogs (e.g. alert, confirm) but otherwise allowing
> scripts via allow-scripts
>  - Also dialogs like when a page or resource is .htpasswd protected
>  - Do not make sound, period. Autoplay is already disabled in sandbox, but
> can be circumvented (e.g. by creating new audio element that autoplays,
> apis that create iframes (soundcloud, vimeo) that then play).
>  - Cannot contain another iframe
>  - Essentially lower the risk-of-annoyance of an <iframe>
>
> Less strict:
>  - Allow some safe version of target="_blank" links
>
> Right now the model for sandbox is "as strict as possible by default" then
> loosen restrictions with attribute values. So I'm not sure how this could
> be approached, since it feels like it would be weird to all the sudden make
> the sandbox attribute more strict than it was before and it also seems
> weird to have some attributes that strengthen strictness and some
> attributes that loosen it.
>
> Mike West from Google suggested I take this conversation here. Thanks Mike!
>
> ---
> Chris Coyier
>

Received on Thursday, 6 February 2014 16:47:31 UTC