Restrictions #363
Restrictions #363
Conversation
…els we have. Once this PR is done (which is isn't now): Fixes w3ctag#41.
| @@ -318,6 +318,23 @@ but in some cases the feature should also be detectable | |||
| in the language where it is used | |||
| (such as ''@supports'' in CSS). | |||
|
|
|||
| <h3 id="restriction-options">Use appropriate methods for restricting features</h3> | |||
|
|
|||
| * [Referrer Policy](https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-referrer-policy/) | ||
| * [Document Policy](https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-feature-policy/document-policy.html) | ||
|
|
||
| TODO: Separate out the ones that are not yet interoperable into their own category. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If it's not interoperable yet, probably best to leave out of the principles document. We also need to write down some guidance here, rough (unpolished) ideas sketched out here: #41 (comment)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Instead of having a complete list here, there should be a list of example (marked as such) like the existing list, then link to another document containing a maintained list
| * The <{iframe}> element's <{iframe/allowfullscreen}> and <{iframe/allowpaymentrequest}> attributes | ||
| * The [{{SecureContext}}] WebIDL attribute. | ||
| * [Content Security Policy (CSP)](https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-csp/) | ||
| * [Referrer Policy](https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-referrer-policy/) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should be https://www.w3.org/TR/referrer-policy/
| @@ -318,6 +318,23 @@ but in some cases the feature should also be detectable | |||
| in the language where it is used | |||
| (such as ''@supports'' in CSS). | |||
|
|
|||
| <h3 id="restriction-options">Use appropriate methods for restricting features</h3> | |||
|
|
|||
| The Web has a number of somewhat-related features: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should we add "for example:" (see below )
torgo
added
the
Status: Consensus to write
|
Discussed in a breakout today with @torgo @ylafon @maxpassion and @cynthia. From @cynthia:
|
According to: https://wicg.github.io/document-policy/, Document Policy is now a draft CG report. |
|
Comments for discussion:
|
|
@dbaron can you please accept the changes from Sangwhan and myself so that we can potentially land this? |
Co-authored-by: Sangwhan "fish" Moon <[email protected]>
|
@torgo I accepted the changes. (I think yours was a duplicate of Sangwhan's, if I'm reading it right...) |
|
(That said, I think this needs some more work before it's ready to land.) |
LeaVerou
removed
the
Status: Consensus to write
|
@maxpassion we're looking at this during a session today and we were wondering if you still wanted to work on it or whether it should be closed? |
Preview | Diff