Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

HTML General Review: Browsing Contexts and Security #250

Closed
1 of 3 tasks
travisleithead opened this issue Apr 17, 2018 · 4 comments
Closed
1 of 3 tasks

HTML General Review: Browsing Contexts and Security #250

travisleithead opened this issue Apr 17, 2018 · 4 comments
Assignees
Labels
Progress: propose closing we think it should be closed but are waiting on some feedback or consensus Topic: HTML

Comments

@travisleithead
Copy link
Contributor

travisleithead commented Apr 17, 2018

Hello TAG!

This issue is part of the TAG's larger effort to review the HTML spec in its entirety--please see the original issue #174 for a summary of all the break-out issues.

The "Sections" are all the sections of the WHATWG HTML spec that should be reviewed as part of this issue. Where the spec section has associated Web Platform Tests, the specific WPT path is noted. While the primary focus of the review is the specification text, it can be helpful to review the related tests to help clarify algorithms or see interoperability conformance issues (or find issues with the tests).

The "Features" are just a sample of what you will encounter as part of this spec section, it's not meant to be exhaustive.

Here are some example suggestions for what to look for during the review, but don't limit to only these suggestions!

  • Look for any APIs that could be 'modernized' according to current design practices.
  • Look for things that could require permissions that aren't modelled in the permissions API at the moment.
  • Look for areas of the platform that contain UA 'magic' (aren't possible for JavaScript programs to emulate due to missing primitives in the platform). These are candidates for future Extensible Web archeology.
  • Look for areas of the spec that describe "wishful thinking" (e.g., that describe a feature that is implemented by no one). Such features should at least have implementor commitments, or they might be candidates for removal from the spec.
  • Look for cryptic and hard-to-follow algorithms that could be improved with extra explanatory text or improved prose. E.g., sometimes adding a "developer note" (green box) can add the needed clarity to understand the intent/purpose or outcome of a complex concept.
  • Look for concepts that are meant to be used together, but where this is not spelled out or explained clearly
Sections WPT path Features
4.8.5 html/semantics/embedded-content/the-iframe-element <iframe>, srcdoc
4.8.6 html/semantics/embedded-content/the-embed-element <embed>
4.8.7 html/semantics/embedded-content/the-object-element <object>
7.1 html/browsers/windows browsing contexts
7.2 to 7.3 html/browsers/the-window-object cross-realm security model, window, window.open()
7.4 html/browsers/the-windowproxy-exotic-object window
7.5 html/browsers/origin
7.6 html/browsers/sandboxing sandbox
8.2 html/webappapis/the-windoworworkerglobalscope-mixin self.origin

Please provide feedback as (please select one):

  • open issues in our Github repo for each point of feedback
  • open a single issue in our Github repo for the entire review
  • leave review feedback as a comment in this issue and @-notify [github usernames]
@travisleithead travisleithead self-assigned this May 8, 2018
@plinss plinss self-assigned this Jul 24, 2018
@dbaron
Copy link
Member

dbaron commented Jul 24, 2018

One thing that came up in the past is w3ctag/design-principles#41.

@torgo
Copy link
Member

torgo commented Jul 26, 2018

Portals proposal has also been brought up here.

@plinss
Copy link
Member

plinss commented Jul 26, 2018

@torgo torgo added this to the 2018-10-30-f2f-paris milestone Oct 30, 2018
@hober hober added the Progress: propose closing we think it should be closed but are waiting on some feedback or consensus label Dec 10, 2019
@hober
Copy link
Contributor

hober commented Dec 10, 2019

Given that we will be getting annual requests for horizontal review of HTML going forward, I propose that we forward-dupe this to #451 & #452 and close.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Progress: propose closing we think it should be closed but are waiting on some feedback or consensus Topic: HTML
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

7 participants