From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,bbe592428babd509
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!198.186.194.249.MISMATCH!transit3.readnews.com!news-out.readnews.com!postnews3.readnews.com!not-for-mail
Message-Id: <4bd47989$0$2371$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net>
From: "Peter C. Chapin" <pcc482719@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Web browser in Ada
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:24:04 -0400
References: <02c2bf63-260d-4acc-bd58-c8fb8a591ec3@b6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
 <0bf9425c-32a1-4b93-b938-ae4a4e24a761@c21g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
 <f3afe709-a918-4bbe-b687-51c687bca3a0@k41g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
 <4bd23c72$0$2399$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net>
 <4f0f26e0-d5f4-46e4-8204-b3b012d33533@v14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: KNode/0.10.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Organization: SoVerNet (sover.net)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 187e5a6f.news.sover.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=O9ajTT1iTLTjT:G\be_IU]K6_LM2JZB_S><9hL1oPCF^:WUUlR<856_n7N\m7cnR7Y9S=N@cYCjPX
X-Complaints-To: abuse@sover.net
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:11174
Date: 2010-04-25T12:24:04-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Gautier write-only wrote:


> Maybe it is a bit naive, but I have the impression that JavaScript's
> vulnerability can be limited to the interaction with the surronding
> operating system: file I/O and code execution (this includes starting
> a plug-in).

I don't know much about JavaScript at the moment, honestly. It sounds like you
are saying that current insecurities in JavaScript are in its interface to
the rest of the world. If so, a more secure implementation of the language
itself might help (depend on what "more secure implementation" really means,
exactly).

> Just kidding. It is a very good idea, especially that the W3C
> specification gives also hints about the parsing.

Another potential benefit is that the W3C is, as I understand it, currently
looking for implementation feedback on the proposed specification. So the
time seems ripe to think about an HTML 5 implementation.

Peter