Re: [heycam/webidl] Consider syntactic changes to WebIDL to make it more "JavaScript-y" (#485)

> For example, we can make one of constructors [SecureContext].

I don't see how.  `[SecureContext]` controls exposure.  You can't have different `[SecureContext]` settings on different overloads of the same function, because there is only one thing being exposed in JS.  This is explicitly specified at https://heycam.github.io/webidl/#SecureContext for that exact reason.

You can, of course, add secure context checks in the actual implementation steps...

Does Chrome's RuntimeEnabled thing work on a per-overload basis?  What happens if you set it on only some overloads of a single method?

Past that, I think the proposal is not unreasonable; I've wanted something similar in Gecko once or twice, precisely so I could add extended attributes.  I just want us to be clear about expectations about what extended attributes will or will not work, is all.

-- 
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/485#issuecomment-448674128