We can also use data: URLs to inject the icons into the HTML file used to render the directory listings. We can do that at the time when the HTML file is generated.
-Darin On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Evan Martin <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 > > <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > >>> > >>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Glen Murphy <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] > >> View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: > >> http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev > >> > > > > -- > Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] > View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: > http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev >
-- Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
