Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] Feature policy evolution (#341)

> Can you give an example of what you mean by "not named against the default state of the policy"? Are there current features which we should be looking at renaming before they get too much traction?

Apologies for the delay, fell through the cracks in the new work process.

This remark might have been confusing - as for the list of shipping feature policy names I think we don't have any examples (based on https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Feature-Policy) - but this was a meta comment on guidelines on how to name feature policies from a spec author perspective. For example, if there is a new platform feature X that is enabled by default, we'd like to see guidelines on naming the policy X rather than "disable-X" or "no-X".

One example would be "no-document-write" - since the tense of current feature policies are positive, it seems like it could be potentially flipped for consistency. One bit we overlooked when making this remark was about how to deal with feature deprecation through FP, in which case it does feel like having a distinction could be a helpful hint on a feature on it's way out. (e.g. no-document-write is an example).  (We're not sure how `unoptimized-images` or `oversized-images` fit into this, though.)

Unfortunately for the last bit we don't have any concrete proposals, and would like to hear what you think.

-- 
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/341#issuecomment-529816262