Closed mgaudet closed 5 months ago
cc @ptomato
@caridy @leobalter Whoops, this looks like my mistake. Performance is still marked as Exposed=(Window,Worker)
in WPT's IDL files, which is what I based my research on for the list of included APIs. But it looks like it should be Exposed=*
as per https://github.com/w3c/hr-time/pull/130 and https://github.com/w3c/performance-timeline/pull/193. I'll go through the other PRs listed in #331 and see if there's any other discrepancies.
To be clear, based on the rationale in #393, performance shouldn't be included (and in general, I'd support its exclusion).
I don't think performance violate the criteria that we are using for inclusion/exclusion. Does it break confidentiality? Is performance.memory.usedJSHeapSize
and co. problematic from that perspective?
Update: after further review of the new API (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Performance/measureUserAgentSpecificMemory), that seems a lot more problematic. Certainly leaking origin information.
Also just generally “host access”
I have added my notes on performance
here https://github.com/tc39/proposal-shadowrealm/blob/main/apis.md#performance-api
@ptomato is there anything else pending to exclude performance
from the initial list?
Yes, we should remove the [Exposed=*]
annotations from the W3C specs for performance
and its properties.
I found that these were already reverted.
(So that's why they didn't show up in WPT's IDL files! ref https://github.com/tc39/proposal-shadowrealm/issues/387#issuecomment-1930519059)
So I think we're good in terms of excluding performance
from the initial list.
In #331 a few performance related PRs were merged; but I don't think any of them merged an actual performance object. In the hr-time spec that's the
If we want to expose the Performance interfaces, we need a Performance object to act as receiver for some of the methods of interest.