- From: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 10:32:38 +0000
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: public-web-security@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CANr5HFUqexrkU+tq-3KU74we7mo_8z1M131RuzQdiOds6dFjVg@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > On 11/4/12 3:58 PM, Alex Russell wrote: > >> DOMString toString(); >> > > This should probably be: > > stringifier; > > instead (which in ES will produce a toString on the prototype, but is more > clear about the point, and might do different things in other binding > languages). Other binding languages don't matter, but OK. > One open issue: I'm not sure If allowsEval, allowsInlineScript, and >> allowsInlineStyle should just be boolean getters or if they should stay >> methods >> > > I think readonly boolean attributes would make more sense here, personally. > Read-only when vended from document.securityPolicy, right? When constructed ("new SecurityPolicy(...)"), I think they should be read-write. > Another thing to think about is whether reportURIs should really be an IDL > array (which does NOT produce a JS array on the JS side, so it really > depends on the expected use cases). I'll advocate for a JS array wherever we surface an array-like collection. It's long past time that we stopped shitting on users with ad-hoc collection types. If you want it read-only, vend an ES6 proxy. We can figure out later how to say that in WebIDL (not that it actually matters, IMO).
Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 10:33:41 UTC