Skip to content

Conversation

kenchris
Copy link
Contributor

@kenchris kenchris commented Oct 18, 2023

@kenchris
Copy link
Contributor Author

Failure is due to respec.org being down!

Copy link
Member

@rakuco rakuco left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The idea sounds good, I wonder if this spec is the first to implement this kind of check.

Can you mention this novel approach in the "Policy control" section? Maybe it's worth discussing it in "Mitigation strategies" too.

index.html Outdated
If |document| is not [=allowed to use=] the [=policy-controlled
feature=] token "compute-pressure", return [=a promise rejected with=] {{NotAllowedError}}.
</ol>
</li>
<aside class="issue">
<a href="https://github.com/wicg/compute-pressure/issues/110">
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
<a href="https://github.com/wicg/compute-pressure/issues/110">
<a href="https://github.com/w3c/compute-pressure/issues/110">

index.html Outdated
<aside class="issue">
<a href="https://github.com/wicg/compute-pressure/issues/110">
Permission policy doesn't support workers yet #110
</a>
Permission policy doesn't support workers directly yet #110</a>, so they cannot be set per
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
Permission policy doesn't support workers directly yet #110</a>, so they cannot be set per
Permission policy does not support workers directly yet (#110)</a>, so they cannot be set per

index.html Outdated
Shared workers often have multiple owning documents as they can be obtained
by other documents with the [=same origin=].

In this case, all owning documents have to have the permission policy allowed
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is "have the permission policy allowed" a common way of phrasing this? It sounds a bit confusing.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, I tried changing it a few times, but didn't find a good wording :-) Maybe @anssiko has some good suggestions

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How about just using allowed to use like in observe()?

"[...] all owning documents must be allowed to use the policy-controlled feature defined by this specification", for example.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sure, done

Copy link
Member

@rakuco rakuco left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm with a nit

Co-authored-by: Raphael Kubo da Costa <raphael.kubo.da.costa@intel.com>
@kenchris kenchris merged commit 2873936 into w3c:main Oct 19, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants