[whatwg] The <iframe> element and sandboxing ideas
ian at hixie.ch
Tue Feb 17 17:47:31 PST 2009
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Frode Børli wrote:
> I like the proposal of adding a "seamless" attribute to the iframe
> element, though it should perhaps be added using CSS since it applies to
It doesn't seem CSS-specific; it would apply to any styling mechanism.
> I also want the following:
> <span sandbox=1> </span>
> This is because a typical Web 2.0 usage is to have a list of comments
> with a thumbs up/thumbs down for each message. This requires more fine
> grained control of what is user generated content and what is scripted
> The problem is 1: that the user can easily write </span> in his comment
> and bypass the sandbox and 2: it is not backward compatible.
> This is prevented by requiring anything inside a sandbox being entity
> <span sandbox=1> </span> </span>
> If the browser finds unescaped content inside a sandbox it should refuse
> to display the page - thereby forcing the author to fix this
I don't really follow. Why can't you have the non-user-created content
outside the iframe and the user-created-content inside?
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, James Ide wrote:
> Overall, I'm seeing sandbox elements to be weak safety nets. AFAIK,
> there is no way for a UA alone to perfectly determine what is author- or
> developer-generated and what is user-submitted; user input must go
> through some santizing process to be completely safe.
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, James Ide wrote:
> Thanks for the clarification. As mentioned previously by other poster, I
> think this could work iff UAs can be passed a set of safe tags,
> attributes, and whatnot (i.e., a whitelist), defaulting to the empty set
> if no such set is specified. UAs can then unescape permitted elements,
> filter out disallowed attributes, and then handle the code as normal.
Providing such a set would be really complex (e.g. you'd have to decide
how to pass through URI schemes, CSS rules, DOM API limitations maybe,
etc). I don't think that's simple enough for a securit feature.
There were other e-mails on this thread, but they repeated points made in
earlier threads that I replied to earlier today, so I didn't reply here.
Please let me know if I missed some important point that should affect the
spec in some way.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg