Yeah, so my question was, does that mean test_shell would have a separate mechanism (the current one?) for file:/// listings?
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Darin Fisher <[email protected]> wrote: > DOM UI implies chrome://, which is implemented by the ChromeURLDataManager > (in browser/dom_ui/). TestShell wouldn't be able to use that. > -Darin > > On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Dean McNamee <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I am pretty out of things these days, but will a DOM UI file:// >> listing work for test_shell? >> >> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 8:29 PM, Darin Fisher <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Right, that's the tricky part. You'd need to do something creative. >> > -Darin >> > >> > On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Pierre-Antoine LaFayette >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Okay. Yes we could use data URI, but where do we retrieve the icon >> >> resources from at that level? >> >> >> >> 2010/1/6 Darin Fisher <[email protected]> >> >>> >> >>> We can also use data: URLs to inject the icons into the HTML file used >> >>> to >> >>> render the directory listings. We can do that at the time when the >> >>> HTML >> >>> file is generated. >> >>> -Darin >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Evan Martin <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> I talked with Arv in person and I think I sufficiently convinced him >> >>>> that getting DOMUI security right is tricky. (Consider: XSSes in the >> >>>> FTP display code, and that ftp sites containing HTML pages must not >> >>>> have privs when displaying the HTML.) That may still mean that DOMUI >> >>>> is ok, but I would prefer to consider any other option available. >> >>>> >> >>>> One idea is to say "we don't care if any old page can <img >> >>>> src='chrome://os-style-icon/foobar.psd'>" to get a Photoshop icon. >> >>>> Not sure. >> >>>> >> >>>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Erik Arvidsson <[email protected]> >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>> > I think it should be OK to move these to DOMUI. NTP can also link >> >>>> > to >> >>>> > local HTML files and we already mark the chrome protocol in such a >> >>>> > way >> >>>> > that it cannot be accessed by any other scheme. >> >>>> > >> >>>> > erik >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 15:19, Pierre-Antoine LaFayette >> >>>> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> >> That's why I wanted to check before starting any work. So the >> >>>> >> question is >> >>>> >> now whether it we'd rather use a DOM UI page or create a similar >> >>>> >> API >> >>>> >> that >> >>>> >> would be used solely by file:// and ftp://. What is needed for >> >>>> >> http://crbug.com/24421 is simply access to the favicon data for >> >>>> >> file >> >>>> >> types. >> >>>> >> I'm not sure if these are available through WebCore or not. The >> >>>> >> drag >> >>>> >> and >> >>>> >> drop functionality required by http://crbug.com/27772 seems like >> >>>> >> it >> >>>> >> would be >> >>>> >> a lot of work without using a DOM UI page. >> >>>> >> Any opinions on this part of my original post?: >> >>>> >> Is there any reason why ChromiumOS' chrome://filebrowse DOM ui >> >>>> >> page >> >>>> >> couldn't >> >>>> >> be generalized to >> >>>> >> be used for these other directory listing pages? >> >>>> >> It just seems to me that it would be rather redundant handle 3 >> >>>> >> separate >> >>>> >> instances of a file browse HTML page (ftp://, file:// and >> >>>> >> chrome://filebrowse) in 3 separate ways. >> >>>> >> Thanks. >> >>>> >> 2010/1/5 Evan Martin <[email protected]> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Glen Murphy <[email protected]> >> >>>> >>> wrote: >> >>>> >>> > I don't think anyone has any objection to DOMUIifying those >> >>>> >>> > pages, >> >>>> >>> > and >> >>>> >>> > I don't think it would be a large amount of work. The only >> >>>> >>> > reason >> >>>> >>> > they're not is that there hasn't been a reason to do so. >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> DOM UI (at least when I last looked) just means that that >> >>>> >>> renderer >> >>>> >>> ("the page") gets extra privileges necessary for doing special >> >>>> >>> browser >> >>>> >>> calls, such as access to your browsing history for the History >> >>>> >>> implementation. >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> We went to some effort to keep these sorts of pages distinct from >> >>>> >>> network content with the hope of reducing the security surface. >> >>>> >>> I >> >>>> >>> worry changing this for FTP would be going in the wrong >> >>>> >>> direction. >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> It might make more sense to do something *like* DOM UI but with a >> >>>> >>> different API just to keep things distinct. But then we >> >>>> >>> reencounter >> >>>> >>> the same sorts of problems we have with DOM UI, like for example >> >>>> >>> if >> >>>> >>> you click a link from an FTP site to an HTML file, how to prevent >> >>>> >>> the >> >>>> >>> FTP privileges from bleeding into the HTML file. >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> I feel like Darin is the person who would best know how to >> >>>> >>> address >> >>>> >>> this. >> >>>> >>> :) >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> -- >> >>>> >> Pierre. >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> -- >> >>>> >> Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] >> >>>> >> View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: >> >>>> >> http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev >> >>>> >> >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] >> >>>> View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: >> >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Pierre. >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] >> > View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: >> > http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev >> > > >
-- Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
