Would this working group be interested in adopting the Window.postMessage
and MessageChannel/MessagePort features from HTML5? It was recently split
from the main HTML5 spec into a subspec, but some people have suggested it
might be best in the webapps group. I'd be happy to continue editing
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Would this working group be interested in adopting the Window.postMessage
and MessageChannel/MessagePort features from HTML5? It was recently split
from the main HTML5 spec into a subspec, but some people have suggested it
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public
Working Draft (FPWD) of the Selectors API Level 2 spec:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api2/
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's
decision to request advancement.
By publishing this FPWD,
On 1/9/2010 09:00, Ian Hickson wrote:
Would this working group be interested in adopting the Window.postMessage
and MessageChannel/MessagePort features from HTML5? It was recently split
from the main HTML5 spec into a subspec, but some people have suggested it
might be best in the webapps
Hixie, All,
On Jan 9, 2010, at 3:00 AM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
Would this working group be interested in adopting the
Window.postMessage
and MessageChannel/MessagePort features from HTML5? It was recently
split
from the main HTML5 spec into a subspec, but some people have
suggested it
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Tyler Close tyler.cl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
[... Requiring uniform responses to redirects ...]
It's a good thing to question,
I support this publication.
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 5:56 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public Working Draft
(FPWD) of the Selectors API Level 2 spec:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api2/
This CfC satisfies
On Jan 9, 2010, at 6:30 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Hixie, All,
On Jan 9, 2010, at 3:00 AM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
Would this working group be interested in adopting the
Window.postMessage
and MessageChannel/MessagePort features from HTML5? It was recently
split
from the main HTML5 spec
I support this publication.
- Maciej
On Jan 9, 2010, at 5:56 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public
Working Draft (FPWD) of the Selectors API Level 2 spec:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api2/
This CfC satisfies the group's
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 7:23 AM, Tyler Close tyler.cl...@gmail.com wrote:
If the response can be parsed as ECMAScript, an attacker can break
confidentiality by loading the document using a script tag.
As Maciej says, just because the server can screw up it's
confidentiality doesn't means we
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Tyler Close tyler.cl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
What happens with Set-Cookie headers included in uniform responses?
It seems like we ought to ignore them based on the principle that UMP
requests are
The UMP spec says:
[[
The user agent must not add any information obtained from: HTTP
cookies, HTTP Auth headers, client certificates, or the referring
resource, including its origin (other than the request parameters).
]]
Does this include the Proxy-Authorization header? If so, how can
clients
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 7:23 AM, Tyler Close tyler.cl...@gmail.com wrote:
Since in general this design cannot be made safe,
I think it's better to not support it at all in the security model, by
allowing a uniform request to
On Sat, 9 Jan 2010, Sigbjorn Finne wrote:
On 1/9/2010 09:00, Ian Hickson wrote:
Would this working group be interested in adopting the
Window.postMessage and MessageChannel/MessagePort features from HTML5?
It was recently split from the main HTML5 spec into a subspec, but
some people
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Tyler Close tyler.cl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
That's the security model we have. For example, it's safe to return
untrusted HTML tags with certain media types but not with others.
Just because
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Tyler Close tyler.cl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
That's the security model we have. For example, it's safe to return
untrusted
On 1/9/2010 23:05, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jan 2010, Sigbjorn Finne wrote:
On 1/9/2010 09:00, Ian Hickson wrote:
Would this working group be interested in adopting the
Window.postMessage and MessageChannel/MessagePort features from HTML5?
It was recently split from the main
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Tyler Close tyler.cl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Tyler Close tyler.cl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
That's
18 matches
Mail list logo
