12390 2011-03-29 06:19:45 +0000 A sandboxed MIME type attribute would be better than a fully qualified MIME type 2011-10-11 00:30:08 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG LC1 HTML5 spec unspecified All All RESOLVED FIXED http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#text-html-sandboxed K WGDecision P1 critical LC 1 jrossi ian adrianba ayg ian julian.reschke mike mjs public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking rubys w3c public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 47020 0 jrossi 2011-03-29 06:19:45 +0000 I don't believe any browsers implement this yet. But a new MIME type specifically for sandboxed HTML content seems like the wrong way to go. As it stands currently, only text/html has a sandboxed equivelant. What about image/svg+xml, or application/xhtml+xml? Do we really want to make a new fully qualified sandboxed MIME type for every existing type? They wouldn't really be new "types." Rather, they look/feel/smell like existing types with the caveat of setting a single flag. Instead, a MIME type attribute would be better (ex: text/html;sandboxed or application/xhtml+xml;sandboxed). This would allow any existing (or future) MIME types to be sandboxed with the unique origin flag. 48369 1 w3c 2011-05-09 18:45:58 +0000 The reason to use the MIME type is to get fail-closed behavior in legacy user agents. My understanding is that having a MIME parameter defeats that goal. If we want fail-open, then we can use something like Content-Security-Policy to deliver a sandbox directive. Note: Using the MIME type does not fail-closed in 100% of situations. There are a couple ways you can trick IE6 into failing open, even with a sandboxed MIME type, due to the lax content sniffing behavior in IE6. As IE6 become less relevant, however, this issue probably matters less. 49616 2 ian 2011-06-15 06:01:24 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: see comment 1 49937 3 rubys 2011-06-20 19:26:56 +0000 From the EDITOR'S RESPONSE "please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so" Does anybody want to propose title and text for the tracker issue? Or to create the tracker issue themselves? 50099 4 mjs 2011-06-22 02:02:01 +0000 (In reply to comment #3) > From the EDITOR'S RESPONSE "please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, > and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker > issue yourself, if you are able to do so" > > Does anybody want to propose title and text for the tracker issue? Or to > create the tracker issue themselves? Please provide a title and text for the tracker issue (including at least a brief technical description of the issue) by midnight Eastern time on Friday, June 25th, 2011, or the Chairs will remove the TrackerRequest keyword. Anyone adding it back after that point should provide the information required. 50167 5 adrianba 2011-06-23 16:24:03 +0000 Created ISSUE 166. http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/166 54075 6 mike 2011-08-04 05:35:49 +0000 mass-move component to LC1 57316 7 rubys 2011-09-25 13:05:12 +0000 Decision: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Sep/0212.html Change Proposal: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/text_html_sandboxed 58018 8 contributor 2011-10-11 00:29:40 +0000 Checked in as WHATWG revision r6657. Check-in comment: Drop text/html-sandboxed http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=6656&to=6657 58019 9 ian 2011-10-11 00:30:08 +0000 Instead of removing the security warnings entirely, I replaced them with warnings that suggest alternative mitigations for the security risks that removing text/html-sandboxed introduces. I hope that's ok.