World: r3wp

Good. Was not sure about that context, wanted to be sure its the 
one of the  html, not something with plugin-rights.

Allen: read-via-browser is a thought, but limits the "magic" of REBOL, 
no? I'm open to thoughts here....the signed scripts only idea is 
interesting to me....

Brock: I'm not sure that test.html has been updated yet....need to 
check on that....

Brock: I have the plugin installed and working great on both browsers 
here, but who cares right ;-)

can java-script open the socket? because rebol can by simply open 
tcp://1234 .... will be catched by firewall, if present - but would 
that be regarded a security problem? How far do we go with limiting 
rebol? It would be good to slowly get to rebol's security bigger 
picture, to prevent the final solution being inconsistent ....

Graham: We'll look into changing the test image....maybe we'll add 
the version # so we know if the new plugin is installed....

Volker: That "wait time" may be due to the new auto-update feature, 
which checks for a new update at RT's servers every day. Do you notice 
a speed improvement on subsequent uses of the plugin within the same 
day?

Ingo: Pages have to be updated manually to work with FF.

Volker: Object ID hasn't changed from beta-6 to beta-7.

Volker: Uninstall is easier with IE (although I have noticed a few 
bugs with that), but FF/Mozilla simply doesn't support uninstallation. 
Thay say that plainly on their plugin info web pages.

Volker: Repro steps on that memory leak would be great. Thanks.

Graham: Good catch on the launch URL relative path problem, need 
to research that....

'wait: its 'wait, the rebol-function, not witing on launch. I have 
a loop
  forever [ wait 0.05 sim-step ]

that works with rebol-exe, but with plugin the wait takes a few seconds 
instead. but its a more complicated script, have not tested this 
 simple example.

DideC: Do you see "REBOL/Plugin for Internet Explorer" in "%WINDIR%\Downloaded 
Program Files" (when you navigate via Explorer)?

Pekr: The docs do need to be updated. We're working on that.

uninstall - could there be something to disable plugin? I dont like 
to install it and  have the beta there for thenext few years. although 
thats not your problem, would like to show plugin to non-techs a 
bit evenin its current state. would like to say  "dont worry later, 
just disable" .

Pekr: Please wait on any announcements until security is in-place 
(coming soon).

Pekr: You can talk to me about the points you raised.

Anton: Don't forget to uninstall completely. Reboot after uninstall 
if you want to be extra sure.

JoshM: I have only very general, philosophic concerns, I can wait 
for your document .... but of course we can talk about it privately 
to not flood this group ...

about memory-leak, i try  to reproduce that. if  it works, i send 
you an url which downloads a lot :)

Volker: That's interesting regarding wait. I will raise that with 
Carl. It may have to do with the plugin's more complicated event 
loop.

Will the doc address only rebol security in regards to browser, or 
also rebol's  security in general?

Volker: If you uninstall via DPF, that should disable it (although, 
like I said, I have noticed a few bugs lately).

JoshhM: don't worry, R3 will have faster event system, or not? :-)

What is DPF *blush*

Pekr: We will be releasing a document soon for a feature called "Trusted 
Scripts" that will lock down security and enable licensing and safe 
loosening of the security settings.

Volker: Sorry, Downloaded Program Files.

Josh - but "trusted scripts" concept does not address the limitiation 
of "normal" plug-in, or eventual extension of rebol security scheme 
itself ....

I hope I am wrong :-)

Pekr: Yes, TS will include a major lockdown of default security settings, 
b/c we will have a way to loosen them.

Ok, that should be enough.

Pekr: TS will not include a change to REBOL's security scheme itself....as 
I have said a few times, changes to REBOL itself are out-of-sync 
with the plugin.

and that was my point - that is a pity ... as folks here had good 
ideas in that regards iirc ...

Pekr: Please raise them with whoever is working on R3.0.

so the whole security concept will be solved by plug-in itself, completly 
unrelated to rebol?

Pekr: If there's something critical for the plugin (I.e. get-net-info), 
we will look at that now.

Pekr: We will make a few, minor changes to REBOL to support changing 
security settings with a valid license key, but that's it. We operate 
on a philosophy of "destablize REBOL as little as possible".

ok, now I understand - you want to get plug-in working with pre 3.0 
rebol, so you have to solve it within plug-in itself, right?

We want to make as little changes to the 1.3 codebase as possible.

Just so you all know, I live in the world of "get the plugin as great 
as possible". Carl owns REBOL itself and whoever he delegates that 
work to.

get-net-info is imo critical - imo majority of corporate users are 
behind the proxy. Imo to get those users on-board, we have to 1) 
provide ability to do some settings (control panel icon, right mouse 
context menu, whatever), or to make proxy detection better ....

Pekr: Yes, I am looking at that code.

ok, I got it ...

hopefull my earlier points towards where windows stores proxy settings 
will help you ...

Pekr: K, I am checking into this now.

Josh - I can help you - I will look into Opera this evening/tomorrow 
and FF and Mozilla, to see where in registry those are stored - you 
know, Mozilla/FF does NOT use Windows control panel settings ... 
so users not using IE will have those settings elsewhere ...

but maybe we don't need to solve it that way, simply suggesting in 
docs, that users should set their proxy in control panel, that would 
be the easier way ....

BTW, Pekr -- if you or anyone else wants to re-write get-net-info, 
it is a REBOL function and you already haev the source. Feel free 
to code away :). If not, we'll put this on the task list, but no 
promises on when it will get done :)

Graham: Regarding launch URL -- the problem is that we currently 
don't have support for relative or root relative paths in FF. This 
is a bug that we should have fixed for the next release.