Thanks Kuntal. Jas, any further thoughts on the matter, ie re: browser support vs. spec designation?
On 2010/07/21 06:44:49, Kuntal Loya wrote:
Created a JIRA issue -
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-1390
On 2010/07/20 10:06:32, anupama.dutta wrote: > On 2010/07/16 16:51:20, gagan.goku wrote: > > Thanks for the pointer Jasvir. > > Seems we want the attributes with type = URI and uriEffect =
SAME_DOCUMENT.
> > > > If i do a grep over the html4-attributes-defs.json file > > in caja\src\com\google\caja\lang\html directory, i find the
following
> > attributes: > > body background > > object classid > > object codebase > > applet codebase > > object data > > link href > > img longdesc > > frame longdesc > > iframe longdesc > > head profile > > script src > > input src > > frame src > > iframe src > > img src > > > > Sadly some (or most) of them (like longdesc etc) seem to be badly
supported
> > by browsers, and due to unexpected bugs we might not want to
handle all of
> > these. > > But maybe a blacklist of attributes will work better. So we go
over every
> > node and each of its attributes (or prepopulate a map of allowed
node and
> > attribute) to find attributes matching our criterion and rewrite
them.
> > > > Thoughts ? > > > Agreed that this change to use the complete w3c spec list from the
class
pointed > to by Jasvir, would be a good change. Kuntal, could you file a jira
issue for
> tracking this? > > I think we should go ahead with the current change for now, and make
the
> transition to the larger list in a subsequent change. Jasvir, Chirag
- do you
> think this will be fine? > > Thanks, > Anupama.
http://codereview.appspot.com/1806044/show
