On 12/1/10 3:16 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
No, <img> was on the list of inlines where javascript: URL execution was explicitly blocked.
Ah, ok. Gotcha.
Someone who manages to install a working Java plugin might want to test this. It doesn't seem like it could be a compat issue to me.
Agreed.
Do you do that just for inlines, or also when navigating to javascript: URLs? If it's both, then that's something we'd need to standardize, unless all browsers already do the same.
It's both in Gecko. We really do try to keep the number of special-cases to a minimum. ;)
I agree that we probably need to standardize this, because I fully expect web sites to depend on the ISO-8859-1 bit when all the charcodes are < 255.
Indeed, so the question is just what the compat constraints are.
Well, no. There's the question of what's least confusing for authors too; see my other mail about that in this thread.
Right, these aren't inlines, in Opera terminology at least. As far as I can see the spec agrees on this, as frames/iframes have their own browsing contexts.
So do <object>s, sometimes, right? -Boris
