On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 19:09:33 +0100, Tab Atkins Jr. <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Anne van Kesteren <[email protected]> >>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Alex Russell <[email protected]> >>>> Until we can agree on this, Type 2 feels like an attractive nuisance >>>> and, onreflection, one that I think we should punt to compilers like >>>> >>>> caja in the interim. If toolkits need it, I'd like to understand those >>>> use-cases from experience. >>> >>> I think Maciej explains fairly well in >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/1364.html >>> why it's good to have. Also, Type 2 can be used for built-in elements, >>> which I thought was one of the things we are trying to solve here. >> >> Stay after class and write 100 times on the board: "Type 2 is not a >> security boundary". > > This is not appropriate on this email list.
Sorry, it was meant to be a playful response to Anne, and as I know him personally and consider him a friend, I assumed he'd take it in kind. (Based on his reaction in IRC, I think he did.) ~TJ
