- 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