Hey,
Firefox restricts the use of window.blur() and window.focus() (by default).
window.blur() is just doing nothing, and window.focus() only works if the
caller is running in the same window.
Should we implement similar rules for WebKit? The purpose of this is to
make pop-unders more difficult
I will try it.
Thanks.
El 3 de abril de 2012 18:46, Geoffrey Garen gga...@apple.com escribió:
JavaScript doesn't have a concept of intercept any method invocation.
However, it does have a concept of intercept any property access. I
believe you could accomplish what you want by implementing a
Last I saw, there hadn't been any attempt to actually define how the content is
encrypted. Has that changed? If it hasn't how do we get interoperable
implementations? The only way for this spec to not break the openness of
video and audio is for the encryption algorithm to be completely
I am all for this change, but a not insubstantial part of that is my general
hate for anything other than me ever changing the focused window and/or element.
--Oliver
On Apr 4, 2012, at 1:31 AM, Jochen Eisinger wrote:
Hey,
Firefox restricts the use of window.blur() and window.focus() (by
Matching Firefox behavior likely means that we won't have to worry about
breaking sites. We may have to worry about breaking Chrome Extensions or
other browser-specific content.
-Darin
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:31 AM, Jochen Eisinger joc...@chromium.org wrote:
Hey,
Firefox restricts the
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
Matching Firefox behavior likely means that we won't have to worry about
breaking sites. We may have to worry about breaking Chrome Extensions or
other browser-specific content.
We could add a method to ChromeClient that
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Jochen Eisinger joc...@chromium.orgwrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
Matching Firefox behavior likely means that we won't have to worry about
breaking sites. We may have to worry about breaking Chrome Extensions or
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Jochen Eisinger joc...@chromium.orgwrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
Matching Firefox behavior likely means that we won't have to worry about
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Jochen Eisinger joc...@chromium.orgwrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Jochen Eisinger joc...@chromium.orgwrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org
The content should be encrypted as defined by the container format and
independent of the key system or the proposed extensions. For MP4, this is
defined by ISO BMFF (Common Encryption). The WebM definition is being
developed. Those individual specs should ensure that implementations of
each
10 matches
Mail list logo
