3 ms·

(2) is undefined. What defines "rendered in the selection?" Which clipboard data stream are we even discussing? How far are you going to take the rendered analo

(2) is undefined. What defines "rendered in the selection?" Which clipboard data stream are we even discussing? How far are you going to take the rendered analogy? Is font too small to read, white on white, an invisible font, or similar "rendered?" (4) is better but it would have to be every single time, because (2) is impossible to define.

nine_k 7y ago
(2) is possible to define in practical terms, that is, with a small amount of false positives, and very close to zero amount of false negatives. It's like spam: a precise closed-form analytical definition is impossible, but spam filters do work.
- ArchReaper 7y ago
  It's absolutely not a reasonable thing to define and target. The bottom line is the feature is a FEATURE and will continue to exist, so trying to police how far websites take it is ultimately a non-starter. Browser vendors could hypothetically start adding specific types of exceptions to make certain types of the 'hidden box' trick not work, but that would ultimately mean those website developers simply switch to whatever method works. The problem isn't solved, it's just re-coded. TLDR: There is NO SOLUTION, because there is NO PROBLEM. The feature works as intended, as written in the spec.
  - chrismorgan 7y ago
    Be careful: just because a feature is working as intended and specified, doesn’t mean that there’s no problem. The spec can be just bad. (I say this as a matter of how you express such things, not about this particular case. I agree with you in considering there to be no bug here, but rather that this is a serious feature that shouldn’t be messed with—and pretty fundamentally can’t without unravelling substantial foundations of the web platform.)
  - nine_k 7y ago
    Think about the reasons why e.g. CORS was invented and implemented, despite XHR requests across domains being a perfectly working feature.

nine_k 7y ago

(2) is possible to define in practical terms, that is, with a small amount of false positives, and very close to zero amount of false negatives. It's like spam: a precise closed-form analytical definition is impossible, but spam filters do work.

ArchReaper 7y ago
It's absolutely not a reasonable thing to define and target. The bottom line is the feature is a FEATURE and will continue to exist, so trying to police how far websites take it is ultimately a non-starter. Browser vendors could hypothetically start adding specific types of exceptions to make certain types of the 'hidden box' trick not work, but that would ultimately mean those website developers simply switch to whatever method works. The problem isn't solved, it's just re-coded. TLDR: There is NO SOLUTION, because there is NO PROBLEM. The feature works as intended, as written in the spec.
- chrismorgan 7y ago
  Be careful: just because a feature is working as intended and specified, doesn’t mean that there’s no problem. The spec can be just bad. (I say this as a matter of how you express such things, not about this particular case. I agree with you in considering there to be no bug here, but rather that this is a serious feature that shouldn’t be messed with—and pretty fundamentally can’t without unravelling substantial foundations of the web platform.)
- nine_k 7y ago
  Think about the reasons why e.g. CORS was invented and implemented, despite XHR requests across domains being a perfectly working feature.