- From: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 11:47:42 +0200
- To: WHAT Working Group Mailing List <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: Chris Coyier <chriscoyier@gmail.com>, David Bruant <bruant.d@gmail.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Mike West <mkwst@google.com> wrote: > After some conversation with bz (CC'd), I've slightly formalized the > description of the feature at > https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Iframe_sandbox_improvments. > > This is something that I'd like to ship in Chrome in the somewhat near > future. See the "Intent to Ship" at > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/blink-dev/wXbgxLu63Fo/YtsqkySmTWcJ. > Feedback, positive or negative, would be appreciated (either here or > there). :) > It seems like there's either substantial agreement (or apathy) regarding the `allow-modals` proposal. The auxiliary proposal is the more interesting of the two, and I've revised it again following some more feedback from ads folks. In short, they're more interested in maintaining a communication channel between the sandboxed frame and the auxiliary window than I thought they were. Given that, I've dropped the opener/openee-disowning behavior from my proposal, and renamed the sandboxing keyword to `allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox` in https://wiki.whatwg.org/index.php?title=Iframe_sandbox_improvments&diff=9958&oldid=9955 . Boris, I think this is consistent with your suggestions in https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/blink-dev/wXbgxLu63Fo/F6WGG03FafAJ and https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/blink-dev/wXbgxLu63Fo/pZZ0MXzpbKAJ. Can you live with this naming/behavior? -mike
Received on Monday, 6 July 2015 09:48:28 UTC