Closed OnkarRuikar closed 1 month ago
I think these end up being redundant because the interfaces they are extending are already limited to secure contexts. We usually don't specify things redundantly.
I think these end up being redundant because the interfaces they are extending are already limited to secure contexts. We usually don't specify things redundantly.
I see. What about ExtendableCookieChangeEvent
If you're only exposed to the ServiceWorker global you are by definition limited to secure contexts because the ServiceWorker global is only exposed to secure contexts.
If you're only exposed to the ServiceWorker global you are by definition limited to secure contexts because the ServiceWorker global is only exposed to secure contexts.
@annevk We want to make it explicit so that the automated w3c/webref
extractor can pick this fact correctly.
I don't think we want to add redundancy to standards for the benefit of tooling. Instead the tooling should be fixed. Could you file an issue against w3c/webref? Feel free to at-mention me if you think that would help.
w3c/webref
repo automatically extracts syntaxes from these spec docs. At the moment some syntax sections are missing the[SecureContext]
tags so it is missing from extracted data in webref as well.The feature has been marked secure in MDN docs.
The PR adds the tags to the remaining interfaces.
Preview | Diff