On 2011-02-06 04:54, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 2/5/11 10:22 PM, Roger Hågensen wrote:
This is just my oppinion but... If they need random number generation in
their script to be cryptographically secure to be protected from another
spying script...
then they are doing it wrong. Use HTTPS, issue
1) Fire popstates as we currently do, with the caveat that you never
fire a stale popstate -- that is, if any navigations or
push/replaceStates have occurred since you queued the task to fire the
popstate, don't fire it.
Proposal B has the advantage of requiring fewer changes.
The more I
On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 17:18:05 +0100, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 2/4/11 11:20 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
I'm not sure what else is exposed on Crypto, but having this available
to workers certainly make sense.
I was assuming that the crypto object in workers wouldn't have anything
On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 09:04:50AM +0100, Roger Hågensen wrote:
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Cryptographically strong random numbers
On 2011-02-06 04:54, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 2/5/11 10:22 PM, Roger Hågensen wrote:
This is just my oppinion but... If they need random number generation in
their
Looks good to me. Using a string instead of a boolean is more
future-extensible should we need to add a new type and is more consistent
with other attributes.
Just to be clear, when you say before/after, you mean in document order
right? So, it's unaffected by rtl, right?
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at
