Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] TAG Review Request: User Activation API (#300)

The proposal seems pretty reasonable to me at first glance.  Some things I think are worth looking into:
* I wonder whether everything in the pile of `postMessage` overloads is safe.  Is it clear that WebIDL handles them all well, e.g., in terms of converting types that people might be using today to the right thing, and on future possible conversions?
* I think it's worth being clear about the liveness of the `UserActivation` objects.  I'm assuming the intent is for `navigator.userActivation` to be a single live object that will change after it's been accessed.  But I *think* it looks like the `userActivation` on `MessageEvent` would be a static object that represents the activation state at the time the message was sent, and doesn't update later if activation occurs.  (There's a mention of cloning.)  Is that correct?
* will making `PostMessageOptions`'s `targetOrigin` default to `/` be surprising to developers?  My inclination is that it seems like a reasonable default, but I think it's worth asking.
* I wonder about the singular name `transfer` for a sequence (compared to, say, `transfers` or `transferList`)

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/300#issuecomment-423007808