Re: [heycam/webidl] Define the `[CrossOriginIsolated]` extended attribute. (#883)

> I lean to this, but it probably should only allow one argument, given that there is no use case to have multiple arguments so far?

As hand-waved at above, I do think we'll end up with multiple arguments. I have concrete plans for at least `CrossOriginIsolated` and `SomethingSomethingInjectionMitigation` which have non-overlapping requirements. I'm happy to consider both as requiring secure transport, but the one doesn't otherwise imply the other.

> And maybe we could also consider having LegacyNone or such as the default exposure condition if there is no exposure condition specified explicitly.

I'd be a bit more aggressive with the naming; `UnsafelyExposedToNetworkAttackers` wasn't really a joke. :)

> Another point is that do we allow a interface with `SecureContext` to contain a member with `CrossOriginIsolated` or a interface with `CrossOriginIsolated` inherits from another interface with `SecureContext`? It seems they are valid use cases to me.

Yes. We would want to support this.

-- 
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/pull/883#issuecomment-629047405