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

Added HostEnsureCanCompileStrings and evalable #209

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 3, 2019
Merged

Conversation

mikesamuel
Copy link
Member

These would provide github.com/wicg/trusted-types what it needs to provide source-to-sink security for code strings.

These would provide github.com/wicg/trusted-types what it needs to provide source-to-sink security for code strings.
Copy link
Member

@ljharb ljharb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Please add both of these to the next agenda :-)

| [Function bind syntax][bind-syntax] | Kevin Smith | Brian Terlson<br />Matthew Podwysocki | [March 2015][bind-notes] |
| [Function expression decorators][func-expr-decorators] | Igor Minar | Igor Minar | |
| [HostEnsureCanCompileStrings passthrough][heccspt] | Mike Samuel | Mike Samuel | |
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This one seems like a needs consensus PR more than a proposal to me.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ok. So is the process:

  1. rework it as a PR against tc39/ecma262/spec.html,
  2. attach the "needs_consensus" label,
  3. schedule 15 minutes under "9. Web compatibility issues / Needs Consensus PRs" on the agenda

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It's certainly up to you if you want to bring it as a proposal - it's possible that some delegates will insist it be one, but it's also possible that delegates will consider it more of a PR.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In PR form: tc39/ecma262#1498

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@ljharb Thanks for explaining. I'll go with PR for now, and have the proposal ready if it's clear that's the way the committee wants to handle it.

@ljharb ljharb merged commit fd9610c into master Apr 3, 2019
@ljharb ljharb deleted the mikesamuel-patch-1 branch April 3, 2019 15:49
@mikesamuel
Copy link
Member Author

Please add both of these to the next agenda :-)

Will do. Thanks.

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