Folks, I think this is an example of the tail wagging the dog, in this case security or even only the "perception of security". These changes undermine the meaning of the universal client - the browser and don't just handicap tiddlywiki users. Any use of HTML and other webpage services locally are at risk.
To disenfranchise a large number of plugins and their developers is also a risky step. I assert the problem is also one of creativity. There is no reason why a lock and key method could not be used to permit or white list files or folders for update access, this could also require separate and independent applications and settings on the client OS or plugins not unlike TiddlyFox which are required to be installed before such assess (with restrictions) is possible. This can even use local administrative to secure and control such access. My Prediction is FireFox will be damaged by this and rather than progressing they will be forced to back-peddle, and it will take a few generations before appropriate solutions are made available. Argggh Tony -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/5a3961fa-0cc3-4b54-8f57-0632b9155357%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
