philipj at opera.com
Wed Dec 1 00:16:54 PST 2010
On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:30:31 +0100, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky at mit.edu> wrote:
> On 11/30/10 4:35 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
>> URL execution.
execute, they did so in the containing document's context. (See my first
mail in this thread for both lists.)
>>> execute the script in Firefox. Do they in Opera?
>> Neither of these execute in Opera, both were explicitly blocked before I
>> started looking into the issue. Note that I can't get <applet
>> a special value for "something"
>> or the Java plugin must be installed?
> This might be needed too, yes.
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.
>> useless. You can only use them where the content is text
> That's not the case, actually. At least in Gecko, the return value
> string is examined to see whether all the charcode values are < 255. If
> they are, then the string is converted to a byte array by just dropping
> the high byte of every char. So you can pretty easily generate image
> data this way.
> If any of the bytes are > 255, then the string is encoded as UTF-8
URLs? If it's both, then that's something we'd need to standardize, unless
all browsers already do the same.
>> and the script has to be completely self-confined
>> Using data: URLs will allow you to
>> generate the data in the outer environment, and it's possible to
>> generate binary data.
> Right. Now that data: support is universal, there may be a lot less
Indeed, so the question is just what the compat constraints are.
>> So far, it seems that the fastest way to reach compat between browsers
> Except for frames/iframes, right?
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
More information about the whatwg