Re: [heycam/webidl] What is the expected interaction of [SecureContext] with mixins? (#118)

Created a separate issue to handle objects implementing non-exposed interfaces to just float around (#449).
***
Going back to your initial question: _"What is the expected interaction of [SecureContext] with mixins?"_

Here's my proposal: If a mixin is included in an interface which is itself annotated with [SecureContext], then none of the mixin members should be exposed, regardless of whether or not the mixin itself, or any of its members has a [SecureContext] extended attribute.

As noted in https://github.com/heycam/webidl/issues/118#issuecomment-332883204, this is also what I'm proposing to do with [Exposed] and matches the existing behavior or partials (I'm generally treating mixins as named partials).

Would that work for you, @bzbarsky?

-- 
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/118#issuecomment-332962875