On 2013/07/26 00:12:34, felix8a wrote:
https://codereview.appspot.com/11883043/diff/5001/src/com/google/caja/plugin/sanitizecss.js
File src/com/google/caja/plugin/sanitizecss.js (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/11883043/diff/5001/src/com/google/caja/plugin/sanitizecss.js#newcode124
src/com/google/caja/plugin/sanitizecss.js:124: * @param {{
sanitizeCssProperty is a public api. Changing the signature like this
will break
some users. this was a minor problem last time it changed. I'm ok with
changing
it, but releases are less traumatic if we do it as: add new interface,
deprecate
old interface, migrate users, delete old interface.
Hm. Based on that, I'm not sure if the whole thing is a good idea — I
didn't intend 'virtualization' to become part of the public interface,
and I had forgotten about the fact that html[-css]-sanitizer is
separately exposed. Now, if 'virtualization' is a good interface, that's
OK, but I don't think it is based on the scope/data-flow issues I
previously mentioned.
On the other hand I'm thinking very shallowly about the whole thing.
https://codereview.appspot.com/11883043/
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Caja Discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
