Thanks, Anne. That's extremely helpful. I'll take a pass at both of those this afternoon. -mike -- Mike West <mkwst@google.com>, Developer Advocate Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München, Germany Google+: https://mkw.st/+, Twitter: @mikewest, Cell: +49 162 10 255 91 On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>wrote: > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 6:22 AM, Mike West <mkwst@google.com> wrote: > > In https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/content-security-policy/rev/0c7cb63e2e48, I've > > stubbed out an initial pass at a SecurityPolicyViolationEvent interface. > I'd > > appreciate some feedback on both the content and the language used to > > describe it. I tried to steal context from other specs, but none really > did > > exactly what I wanted. Ah well. > > Event.cancelable is already false by default so you don't have to say > that. You also need to initialize all the other members. See > http://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-event-fire-progress for an > example. > > You also need to define an event constructor, see > http://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/#interface-progressevent for an example. > > > -- > http://annevankesteren.nl/ >
Received on Tuesday, 19 March 2013 11:34:30 UTC