I'm working on this. From an implementation point of view, we have almost
everything done and behind pref.
There are still some patches to review but it should not take too long.
The only missing piece is to change form submission but I should be able to
finish it for the next week.
More important
Am Mittwoch, 23. September 2015 02:33:52 UTC+2 schrieb Jonas Sicking:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:16 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> >> The api has been extensively discussed with all browser vendors and has
> >> changed substantially in response to this
> >
> > Can you please point me to those change
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:16 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>> The api has been extensively discussed with all browser vendors and has
>> changed substantially in response to this
>
> Can you please point me to those changes and to the security analysis?
Security wasn't discussed much in these convers
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> This draft is a good sketch, but it's not a specification from which
> we can create long term interoperable implementations.
E.g., it claims to build on the FileSystem API, but defines an
additional path member on Directory without men
On 22/09/2015 15:46, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Jonathan Watt wrote:
2. https://wicg.github.io/directory-upload/proposal.html
It still seems bad that this is not being integrated into whatwg/html
directly.
It's not that this isn't going to happen (I would cert
On 22/09/2015 15:16, Eric Rescorla wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 7:07 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
There are spec drafts written for most of this feature, with remaining
parts on the way.
To the extent to which you're referring to:
https://wicg.github.io/directory-upload/proposal.html
I find i
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Jonathan Watt wrote:
> 2. https://wicg.github.io/directory-upload/proposal.html
It still seems bad that this is not being integrated into whatwg/html
directly. A ton of things are basically not defined right now. It's
also unclear how this feature should work toge
On 22/09/2015 00:27, Richard Barnes wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Jonathan Watt wrote:
I don't think directory picking is bad - there are many sites with
legitimate uses. I think it's right that we need to think about the
security implications though, and members of the security team
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 7:07 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
> On Sep 21, 2015 11:57, "Eric Rescorla" wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Jonas Sicking
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Note that this, similarly to clipboard integration, is already exposed
> >> to the web through flash. So the main go
On Sep 21, 2015 11:57, "Eric Rescorla" wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> Note that this, similarly to clipboard integration, is already exposed
>> to the web through flash. So the main goal of this feature is to
>> enable developers to migrate off of flash an
On Sep 21, 2015 11:57, "Eric Rescorla" wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> Note that this, similarly to clipboard integration, is already exposed
>> to the web through flash. So the main goal of this feature is to
>> enable developers to migrate off of flash an
It looks like most of the Security discussion is happening in this bug now:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=907707
--Jet
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Eric Shepherd
> wrote:
>
> > Eric Rescorla wrote:
> >
> > I think there
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Eric Shepherd
wrote:
> Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
> I think there are some fairly obvious issues here, including:
>
> - There are obvious sensitive files you shouldn't upload under
> basically any conditions.
> - It's hard for the client to know what the implication
Eric Rescorla wrote:
> I think there are some fairly obvious issues here, including:
>
> - There are obvious sensitive files you shouldn't upload under
> basically any conditions.
> - It's hard for the client to know what the implications of any directory
> upload are
> because they may not kno
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Jonathan Watt wrote:
> On 21/09/2015 19:57, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> Note that this, similarly to clipboard integration, is already exposed
>>> to the web through flash. So the main goal of this featur
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Jonathan Watt wrote:
> On 21/09/2015 19:57, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> Note that this, similarly to clipboard integration, is already exposed
>>> to the web through flash. So the main goal of this featur
On 21/09/2015 19:57, Eric Rescorla wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Note that this, similarly to clipboard integration, is already exposed
to the web through flash. So the main goal of this feature is to
enable developers to migrate off of flash and instead use Gec
On 21/09/2015 19:31, Eric Shepherd wrote:
Jonas Sicking wrote:
Note that this, similarly to clipboard integration, is already exposed
to the web through flash. So the main goal of this feature is to
enable developers to migrate off of flash and instead use Gecko.
That said, if there are ways we
That's a good question. There's been a bunch of discussion about this in
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=907707
On 21/09/2015 16:49, Eric Rescorla wrote:
This seems like a fantastically dangerous feature and ripe for abuse.
Are we doing anything in the UI to make very clear to use
On 09/21/2015 05:37 PM, Jonathan Watt wrote:
Targeting Firefox 44 we intend to ship[1] Directory Upload[2],
It seems there are many security, privacy and UI issues discussed in
bug 907707 that are still unresolved. I see that it's blocking the
ship-it tracking bug, but it seems premature to di
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> Note that this, similarly to clipboard integration, is already exposed
> to the web through flash. So the main goal of this feature is to
> enable developers to migrate off of flash and instead use Gecko.
>
I'm not sure that this is the ri
Jonas Sicking wrote:
> Note that this, similarly to clipboard integration, is already exposed
> to the web through flash. So the main goal of this feature is to
> enable developers to migrate off of flash and instead use Gecko.
>
> That said, if there are ways we can improve the UI here to further
Note that this, similarly to clipboard integration, is already exposed
to the web through flash. So the main goal of this feature is to
enable developers to migrate off of flash and instead use Gecko.
That said, if there are ways we can improve the UI here to further
explain to users what is going
This seems like a fantastically dangerous feature and ripe for abuse.
Are we doing anything in the UI to make very clear to users what's going on?
Is there going to be a way to disable it?
-Ekr
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 8:37 AM, Jonathan Watt wrote:
> Targeting Firefox 44 we intend to ship[1] D
Targeting Firefox 44 we intend to ship[1] Directory Upload[2], which provides
directory picking (via ) and directory drag-and-drop.
Our implementation has been developed behind the `dom.input.dirpicker`
preference, enabled only in Nightly builds so far.
In addition to previously announcing our
25 matches
Mail list logo
