Re: [heycam/webidl] The [SecureContext] text is unclear on exposure for interfaces (#119)

It seems like the word "exposed" in the text I originally quoted should really be linking to `#dfn-exposed` if the word is being used in its technical sense there.

And regarding:

> The normative text here is http://heycam.github.io/webidl/#SecureContext where it says that for an interface member that doesn't have [SecureContext] specified explicitly:
>
>>    The interface member is available only in secure contexts if and only if the interface or partial interface the member is declared on is.

I, uh, managed to read the text leading into that section as "Whether a constructor..." instead of "Whether a construct..." which unsurprisingly threw me off there. :-/

One other thing that's unclear to me is what the exposure of partial interface members is if [SecureContext] is specified on the non-partial interface but not on the partial interface. Probably if the non-partial interface is [SecureContext] then we want any non-partial interfaces to be [SecureContext] too. In that case it would be good to require that to be explicit in any WebIDL, similar to the way interfaces that inherit from a [SecureContext] interface are also required to be explicitly [SecureContext].

---
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/heycam/webidl/issues/119#issuecomment-218603140