3 ms·
That sort of protection has nothing to do with js, but rather the browser, which isn't in play here. Edit: It's implemented via Mobile Safari, as pointed out b
by daeken 15y ago
That sort of protection has nothing to do with js, but rather the browser, which isn't in play here.
Edit: It's implemented via Mobile Safari, as pointed out by justincormack -- this comment is invalid.
- justincormack 15y agoiBooks is implemented using mobile Safari, so the security model is the same. It uses CSS3 columns to make the pages going across.
- daeken 15y agoAh hah, I was mistaken. Thanks!
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- evinfinite 15y agoI find it rather silly to be worried about security given that Apple's one of the largest browser vendors in the world, directly or indirectly via WebKit. More accurately: all increasing of capabilities in non-immediately-apparent sources IS cause for concern. But that has to be weighted against the exhibited competence of the vendor. I find it unlikely that we-vet-everything our-brand-name-is-safe-computing-experiences Apple wouldn't have considered security in this move.
- rm-rf 15y agoPresumably they have. But given the number of times Safari has been remotely exploitable in the past, that's not necessarily reassuring.