- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 19:27:08 -0700
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Wednesday 2010-06-02 16:22 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > While I support the notion of not messing with the cut buffer > for UI sanity (i.e., allowing this is a browser bug), I think > it is pointless to argue about this tool as a legitimate means > of copy control. I don't think it's reasonable to expect browsers to enforce user expectations on copying given a "malicious" Web page. There are a large number of ways to hide text, such as positioning it offscreen, using a very small font size, making it alternate content for a small image, positioning other content on top of it, etc. And we certainly still want to allow copying of text that's offscreen so users can copy large pieces of text. The ability to manipulate what a user is copying is also important for applications on the Web. If you're using a Web app like Google Docs, you want copy to copy a useful representation, not the internal representation that the editor uses. If you're copying data from a spreadsheet that auto-formats numbers by inserting commas every three digits in the displayed value, you may well want to copy the value without the displayed commas that are not really part of the data, just part of the display. For some more examples, see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=280959#c6 . -David -- L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Saturday, 5 June 2010 02:28:09 UTC