W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > July 2015

Re: [whatwg] Proposal: Two changes to iframe@sandbox

From: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 11:47:42 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKXHy=d+o4nPr8t8j+GhqHFeVh1bqgeyZLzhrabuTLho-QP6Kw@mail.gmail.com>
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

Boris, I think this is consistent with your suggestions in
Can you live with this naming/behavior?

Received on Monday, 6 July 2015 09:48:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 6 July 2015 09:48:29 UTC