Instead of DOMUI, why not use an extension to display the directory
listing? You can put the icons in the CRX.
Adam
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Evan Martin <e...@chromium.org> wrote:
> I talked with Arv in person and I think I sufficiently convinced him
> that getting DOMUI security right is tricky. (Consider: XSSes in the
> FTP display code, and that ftp sites containing HTML pages must not
> have privs when displaying the HTML.) That may still mean that DOMUI
> is ok, but I would prefer to consider any other option available.
>
> One idea is to say "we don't care if any old page can <img
> src='chrome://os-style-icon/foobar.psd'>" to get a Photoshop icon.
> Not sure.
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Erik Arvidsson <a...@chromium.org> wrote:
>> I think it should be OK to move these to DOMUI. NTP can also link to
>> local HTML files and we already mark the chrome protocol in such a way
>> that it cannot be accessed by any other scheme.
>>
>> erik
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 15:19, Pierre-Antoine LaFayette
>> <pierre.lafaye...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> That's why I wanted to check before starting any work. So the question is
>>> now whether it we'd rather use a DOM UI page or create a similar API that
>>> would be used solely by file:// and ftp://. What is needed for
>>> http://crbug.com/24421 is simply access to the favicon data for file types.
>>> I'm not sure if these are available through WebCore or not. The drag and
>>> drop functionality required by http://crbug.com/27772 seems like it would be
>>> a lot of work without using a DOM UI page.
>>> Any opinions on this part of my original post?:
>>> Is there any reason why ChromiumOS' chrome://filebrowse DOM ui page couldn't
>>> be generalized to
>>> be used for these other directory listing pages?
>>> It just seems to me that it would be rather redundant handle 3 separate
>>> instances of a file browse HTML page (ftp://, file:// and
>>> chrome://filebrowse) in 3 separate ways.
>>> Thanks.
>>> 2010/1/5 Evan Martin <e...@chromium.org>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Glen Murphy <g...@chromium.org> wrote:
>>>> > I don't think anyone has any objection to DOMUIifying those pages, and
>>>> > I don't think it would be a large amount of work. The only reason
>>>> > they're not is that there hasn't been a reason to do so.
>>>>
>>>> DOM UI (at least when I last looked) just means that that renderer
>>>> ("the page") gets extra privileges necessary for doing special browser
>>>> calls, such as access to your browsing history for the History
>>>> implementation.
>>>>
>>>> We went to some effort to keep these sorts of pages distinct from
>>>> network content with the hope of reducing the security surface. I
>>>> worry changing this for FTP would be going in the wrong direction.
>>>>
>>>> It might make more sense to do something *like* DOM UI but with a
>>>> different API just to keep things distinct. But then we reencounter
>>>> the same sorts of problems we have with DOM UI, like for example if
>>>> you click a link from an FTP site to an HTML file, how to prevent the
>>>> FTP privileges from bleeding into the HTML file.
>>>>
>>>> I feel like Darin is the person who would best know how to address this.
>>>> :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Pierre.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
>>> View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
> View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
> http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
>
--
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
