- From: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 05:44:29 +0200
- To: Ian Melven <ian.melven@gmail.com>
- Cc: WHAT Working Group Mailing List <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Chris Coyier <chriscoyier@gmail.com>, David Bruant <bruant.d@gmail.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Ian Melven <ian.melven@gmail.com> wrote: > 1) At one point i think showModalDialog was specified to be blocked unless > allow-popups was set. (I can't find this in the current editor's draft of > the spec). > It seems to me that it would make sense to follow #1 in your proposal > (blocking alert and friends) UNLESS allow-popups is specified perhaps ? > Unless the advertising use case is such that they would want to specify > allow-popups in most common cases, which negates any benefit of this > restriction in practice > My understanding of the use case is that they want `allow-popups` in order to allow navigation to a landing page via `target="_blank"`, et al. They don't want modal dialogs from that same window. Tying both behaviors to `allow-popups` wouldn't solve their problem. > 2) this also sounds like allow-popups would be needed (since you shouldn't > be allowed to open new auxiliary browsing context without it) > Correct. Both `allow-popups` and the new flag would need to be specified. > and maybe is more consistent using 'allow-popups-unsandboxed' ? > Or `allow-unsandboxed-popups`. I don't really care how we spell it. :) -- Mike West <mkwst@google.com>, @mikewest Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München, Germany, Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg, Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine Elizabeth Flores (Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to emails. Bleh.)
Received on Tuesday, 12 May 2015 03:45:15 UTC