- From: Anne van Kesteren <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Wed, 03 May 2023 22:33:39 -0700
- To: w3c/screen-orientation <screen-orientation@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
- Message-ID: <w3c/screen-orientation/pull/251/review/1412314443@github.com>
@annevk approved this pull request. > + The <dfn>common safety checks</dfn> for a {{Document}} + |document:Document| are the following steps: + </p> + <ol class="algorithm"> + <li data-tests="non-fully-active.html">If |document| is not + [=Document/fully active=], [=exception/throw=] an + {{"InvalidStateError"}} {{DOMException}}. + </li> + <li data-tests="lock-sandboxed-iframe.html">If |document| has the + [=sandboxed orientation lock browsing context flag=] set, + [=exception/throw=] {{"SecurityError"}} {{DOMException}}. + </li> + <li data-tests="hidden_document.html">If |document|'s + [=Document/visibility state=] is "hidden", [=exception/throw=] + {{"SecurityError"}} {{DOMException}}. + </li> It strikes me that if you adopt https://github.com/whatwg/html/commit/2db564c6902ace8c2539560e508ce22c2948c4d8 here (and I think you should in a follow-up) you won't get to distinguish exceptions, but that's probably okay. > + <p> + The <dfn>common safety checks</dfn> for a {{Document}} + |document:Document| are the following steps: + </p> I guess that's okay, but I'd rather we explain the mechanism in a note so implementations with correct binding layers don't do this redundantly as well. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/w3c/screen-orientation/pull/251#pullrequestreview-1412314443 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: <w3c/screen-orientation/pull/251/review/1412314443@github.com>
Received on Thursday, 4 May 2023 05:33:45 UTC