Spec disableUntrustedNetwork API surface #146
Conversation
|
Addressed comments % a question about "default" vs "initial" values. |
|
Can you just "resolve" all comment threads that have been resolved at this point? |
|
And resolve the merge conflict that this PR now has with |
|
@domfarolino Fixed merge conflicts. The open threads aren't resolved per se. They depend on your response here: (whether I should commit the suggestions or do nothing) |
|
I don't care which word we use "default" vs "initial". I just want it to be consistent, and this PR makes it inconsistent with https://github.com/WICG/fenced-frame/pull/146/files#diff-6f5a1d8263b0b0c42e2716ba5750e3652e359532647ac934c1c70086ae3ceddaR1213. So I'd either make this PR consistent with https://github.com/WICG/fenced-frame/pull/146/files#diff-6f5a1d8263b0b0c42e2716ba5750e3652e359532647ac934c1c70086ae3ceddaR1213 or make that line consistent with this PR. Whichever word you prefer. |
| 1. Let |instance| be [=this=]'s [=relevant global object=]'s [=Window/browsing context=]'s | ||
| [=browsing context/fenced frame config instance=]. | ||
|
|
||
| 1. If |instance| is null, then [=resolve=] |p| with {{undefined}} and return |p|. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK I am so sorry but I feel like I've asked when this can be null before, and I cannot for the life of me find the previous comments with the answer to this. This method is only accessible when instance is non-null, right? https://wicg.github.io/fenced-frame/#dom-window-fence. So is this condition needed? /cc @blu25 who might also know.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Here's the discussion from my PR about the same line: #169 (comment)
I think all of these should be fine to remove (or assert if you feel strongly about that) since a condition for getting access to window.fence is that the browsing context must have a fenced frame config instance.
Preview | Diff