Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] Trusted Types (#198)

I'm not convinced of the need for the 'exposed' and exposed-enumeration APIs on the `TrustedTypePolicyFactory`. If the application wants to expose the policy globally, this is *really* easy to do in an application specific way. For example, just stash a policy on the global object under a well-known name. If these extra features are dropped, the policy parts of the proposal start to look much more like JavaScript's `Proxy` which is a pattern that is known and could use the [constructor pattern](https://github.com/w3ctag/design-principles/issues/44).

There also seems to be some potential alignment between the new 'policy' object planned to be exposed by the Feature policy spec (for DOM access to a document's feature policy), and the policy-related objects exposed by this spec. It would be nice to rationalize the names so that both policy things make sense.

-- 
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/198#issuecomment-461322284