: Re: Reminder: RfC: Last Call Working Draft of Web Workers; deadline
April 21
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Andrew Wilson atwil...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
That's why we're working on trying to fix fingerprinting.
The point
* Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
Please correct me if I'm missing something, but I don't see any new
privacy-leak vectors here. Without Shared Workers, 3rdparty.com can
just hold open a communication channel to its server and shuttle
information between the iframes on A.com and B.com that way.
That does
...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Arthur Barstow
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 5:42 PM
To: ext Jonas Sicking
Cc: public-webapps
Subject: Re: Reminder: RfC: Last Call Working Draft of Web Workers; deadline
April 21
On Apr/14/2011 6:39 PM, ext Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Travis Leithead
travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote:
(This time before the deadline :)
Microsoft has the following additional feedback for this Last Call of Web
Workers.
We are concerned about the privacy implications we discovered when reviewing
the
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
Please correct me if I'm missing something, but I don't see any new
privacy-leak vectors here. Without Shared Workers, 3rdparty.com can
just hold open a communication channel to its server and shuttle
information
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Travis Leithead
travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote:
(This time before the deadline :)
Microsoft has the following additional feedback for this Last Call of Web
Workers.
We are
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
Please correct me if I'm missing something, but I don't see any new
privacy-leak vectors here. Without Shared Workers, 3rdparty.com can
just hold
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
Please correct me if I'm missing something, but I don't see any new
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
That's why we're working on trying to fix fingerprinting.
The point is that privacy is something that we're all working on
trying to improve (right?), and the WebWorkers spec needs to be
changed to aid with that. As far
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Andrew Wilson atwil...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
That's why we're working on trying to fix fingerprinting.
The point is that privacy is something that we're all working on
trying to improve
On 4/20/11 3:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
Please correct me if I'm missing something, but I don't see any new
privacy-leak vectors here. Without Shared Workers, 3rdparty.com can
just hold open a communication channel to its server
Unless you have a firewall or proxy that prevents that
On 4/20/11 6:57 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
True, you need some side-channel to link the two iframes for a
particular client. You can use something simple like one of the
*other* within-domain communication mediums (cookies, localStorage,
etc.)
Which is why there are options to restrict
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Travis Leithead wrote:
We are concerned about the privacy implications we discovered when
reviewing the current web workers editor's draft in its treatment of
shared workers [1]. Specifically, the spec as currently written allows
for 3rd party content to use shared
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
This is a Request for Comments for the March 10 Last Call Working Draft of
Web Workers:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-workers-20110310/
If you have any comments, please send them to the following list by 21 April
On Apr/14/2011 6:39 PM, ext Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Arthur Barstowart.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
This is a Request for Comments for the March 10 Last Call Working Draft of
Web Workers:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-workers-20110310/
If you have any comments, please
17 matches
Mail list logo
