26425 2014-07-24 10:18:56 +0000 Drop the default for [Exposed] 2017-12-06 11:10:34 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WebAppsWG WebIDL unspecified All All RESOLVED MOVED P2 normal --- 1 Ms2ger cam annevk bzbarsky jackalmage jyasskin mike n.arellanomoran public-script-coord tobie.langel public-webapps-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 109243 0 Ms2ger 2014-07-24 10:18:56 +0000 It seems clearer for the reader if all interfaces get an [Exposed] extended attribute rather than inferring Window if there isn't one. 127574 1 tobie.langel 2016-09-28 15:30:12 +0000 I agree on principle, but that ship has sailed. How would we distinguish between an interface that shouldn't be exposed because [exposed] is missing from an interface that should be because it was spec'ed before we made this change? 127575 2 bzbarsky 2016-09-28 15:43:07 +0000 We'd distinguish by going and editing every single spec accordingly... 127576 3 tobie.langel 2016-09-28 15:49:54 +0000 (In reply to Boris Zbarsky from comment #2) > We'd distinguish by going and editing every single spec accordingly... Sure. Seems like a lot of work for something that appears to be essentially cosmetics, though. Or am I missing the broader picture? 127577 4 annevk 2016-09-28 15:53:55 +0000 Yeah, the problem is that specifications don't consider workers, or service workers, etc. Not having a default would require specifications to consider what they're doing, which I think is what we want. (There's also been some confusion from developers in the past as to how interfaces end up being exposed. There being an explicit syntax link would help with that too.) 127578 5 tobie.langel 2016-09-28 15:58:55 +0000 OK, that makes sense. We need a strategy to make every spec fix their this though. 127579 6 jyasskin 2016-09-28 16:36:40 +0000 Making an interface without [Exposed] into a bikeshed and respec error would catch a good fraction of maintained specs. 127580 7 bzbarsky 2016-09-28 16:39:02 +0000 And once those get updated, we can change browser IDL parsers and file bugs on any remaining specs that this catches.... 127593 8 jackalmage 2016-09-28 21:37:23 +0000 Is there a good doc I can point to somewhere in Bikeshed's error message letting people know how to fix things correctly? (I'm not willing to add errors where the solution is "ask someone in #whatwg what to do".) 127595 9 tobie.langel 2016-09-28 22:14:15 +0000 (In reply to Tab Atkins Jr. from comment #8) > Is there a good doc I can point to somewhere in Bikeshed's error message > letting people know how to fix things correctly? (I'm not willing to add > errors where the solution is "ask someone in #whatwg what to do".) I'll add documentation in WebIDL itself once we get to this and will coordinate with you. 127608 10 jyasskin 2016-09-29 19:33:35 +0000 I've filed https://github.com/w3ctag/design-principles/issues/35 to hold the design advice Tab's looking for. 128596 11 tobie.langel 2017-05-17 09:42:58 +0000 See also https://github.com/heycam/webidl/issues/365. 128998 12 annevk 2017-12-06 11:10:34 +0000 See comment above.