- From: Andrew Betts <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 18:49:57 -0700
- To: w3ctag/design-reviews <design-reviews@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
- Message-ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/369/495036799@github.com>
The freeze/resume lifecycle events are part of the page lifecycle spec, so I think it's correct to use them here, and whether or not they are well named is a lifecycle spec issue (though I actually don't have any big problem with them - I take the point that they are not direct opposites but I think they are reasonably descriptive of what's going on). The policy names are pretty gnarly, and this is more a reflection of the design on feature policy than this particular use case. I'm not sure what I would name them that would be any better, and having to name a policy based on a kind of behaviour that is *allowed* is frequently causing grammatical somersaults in the design of policies. It's also a nonsense to have an origin list here that is not 'none' or *. What does it mean to write `<iframe src='foo.example.com' allow="execution-while-out-of-viewport bar.example.com">`? This is effectively disallowing execution while out of view for the frame itself, but allowing it for any subframes whose origin is bar.example.com (unless overridden by an `allow` attribute on that iframe ). It seems far more likely that I want to indicate *whether* this policy should cascade, rather than stipulating an origin list. So I would say we need to fix feature policy first, then this policy name could be more intuitive. -- 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/369#issuecomment-495036799
Received on Thursday, 23 May 2019 01:50:19 UTC