- From: Ms2ger <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2023 01:35:11 -0800
- To: whatwg/webidl <webidl@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Received on Wednesday, 13 December 2023 09:35:16 UTC
### What is the issue with the Web IDL Standard? CSP has this IDL code (: ```webidl [Exposed=(Window,Worker)] interface SecurityPolicyViolationEvent : Event { constructor (DOMString type, optional SecurityPolicyViolationEventInit eventInitDict = {}); // ... }; dictionary SecurityPolicyViolationEventInit : EventInit { required USVString documentURI; // ... }; ``` which IDL doesn't, as far as I can tell, expect or handle well. If I'm not mistaken, when handling `new SecurityPolicyViolationEvent("type")`, the overload resolution algorithm just passes "that default value" in step 15.4.1, and nothing really defines what that value is ("which represents a default-initialized (as if from ES null or an object with no properties) dictionary value"). The behavior of the constructor is specified in [DOM](https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#constructing-events), which doesn't pay attention to the requiredness of dictionary members. It appears to me that as currently specified, the `required` tokens are essentially ignored when the argument is omitted. This seems unexpected at least. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/whatwg/webidl/issues/1378 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: <whatwg/webidl/issues/1378@github.com>
Received on Wednesday, 13 December 2023 09:35:16 UTC