is posted a very rough first draft for a "Secure ECMAScript" standard,
derived from the "Mountain View draft" of ES3.1
es3.1:es3.1_proposal_working_draft
and from Cajita. I hope and believe that we can resolve differences
between this and other contenders for the Cajita-like layer: ADsafe,
Jacaranda, and Dojo Secure. (As for the Valija-like layer, both Valija
and MS WebSandbox intend to emulate at least ES3.1-strict, so there's
no need for a separate standard for that layer.)
Further discussion of SES specifically should proceed on the "caplet
group" list.
At
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=ses:ses_proposal_working_draft
is posted a very rough first draft for a "Secure ECMAScript" standard,
derived from the "Mountain View draft" of ES3.1
<http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=es3.1:es3.1_proposal_working_draft>
and from Cajita. I hope and believe that we can resolve differences
between this and other contenders for the Cajita-like layer: ADsafe,
Jacaranda, and Dojo Secure. (As for the Valija-like layer, both Valija
and MS WebSandbox intend to emulate at least ES3.1-strict, so there's
no need for a separate standard for that layer.)
Further discussion of SES specifically should proceed on the "caplet
group" list.
--
Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain
Cheers,
--MarkM
At
ses:ses_proposal_working_draft
is posted a very rough first draft for a "Secure ECMAScript" standard, derived from the "Mountain View draft" of ES3.1 es3.1:es3.1_proposal_working_draft
and from Cajita. I hope and believe that we can resolve differences between this and other contenders for the Cajita-like layer: ADsafe, Jacaranda, and Dojo Secure. (As for the Valija-like layer, both Valija and MS WebSandbox intend to emulate at least ES3.1-strict, so there's no need for a separate standard for that layer.)
Further discussion of SES specifically should proceed on the "caplet group" list.