Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add allowpaymentrequest attribute for iframe support #268

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 17, 2016

Conversation

adrianba
Copy link
Contributor

Fixes #2.

@adrianba adrianba merged commit fc2c64d into w3c:gh-pages Sep 17, 2016
@adrianba adrianba deleted the iframe-support branch September 17, 2016 05:08
</p>
<p>
The <a>HTMLIFrameElement</a> is extended with an <dfn><code>allowpaymentrequest</code></dfn>
content attribue. <a><code>allowpaymentrequest</code></a> is a <a>boolean attribute</a>.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This isn't really what we've discussed. Unless there was subsequent conversation outside of the issue, the proposal (which didn't have any disagreement) was to extend the already-defined "permissions" attribute with a new "payment" value.

@halindrome
Copy link
Contributor

@adamroach do you mean the sandbox attribute? allow-payment would be a sensible additional value for that attribute.

A related question. Can a script in an iframe query its surrounding iframe element to determine if it has permission to do something?

@adamroach
Copy link
Contributor

adamroach commented Sep 18, 2016

@halindrome

@adamroach do you mean the sandbox attribute? allow-payment would be a sensible additional value for that attribute.

No, I mean the syntax demonstrated in this comment: #2 (comment) (where I also describe why Mozilla's security folks are not okay with using sandbox for this kind of thing).

The conversation from there consisted of @zkoch calling the suggestion "great", and then (after consulting with his security team) pointing to the Feature Policy work, which currently defers to the Permission Delegation API -- see its examples section for a quick glance at how this works; but the syntax it shows is in line what I proposed. I understand that the Feature Policy document and the Permission Delegation document may be merged, but my understanding is that this is a document structure change with no protocol implications.

As far as I know, that's the extent of the discussion on this topic, which is why I find the changes that were just merged in to be surprising.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants