| 12:17 | <annevk> | Yoav Weiss Luca Casonato participation is sorted, but what about the checkboxes in OP? |
| 12:35 | <Yoav Weiss> | annevk: I'm on it |
| 13:52 | <Dominic Farolino> | annevk: Q about "And even for shared workers you could do this by canonicalizing allow and making it part of the key, I think." By "key" do you mean the criteria that we use to match a worker invocation with an existing shared worker? (i.e., maybe allow=foo could match one shared worker, but allow=bar could match a different one) |
| 14:03 | <annevk> | Dominic Farolino: yup |
| 14:04 | <annevk> | Dominic Farolino: or a variant of that where it's not part of the key, but a subsequent requirement (so you don't get your own shared worker, but you get failure instead); TBD |
| 14:09 | <Dominic Farolino> | annevk: Well the current proposal does give you a failure if you don't match, right? (Specifically, if allow is tighter than what the worker headers demand) |
| 14:11 | <Dominic Farolino> | I kind of like the variant where we match based on allow, and you might get your own shared worker that because of that. But we decided that'd be confusing and tricky when working on extendedLifetime shared workers, so you get an error instead. Might be best to follow suit there. |
| 14:23 | <annevk> | Dominic Farolino: sure, but this variant wouldn't require the (shared) worker to have a header. Failure seems reasonable to me. It's all same-origin so with failure you'll quickly find out where you haven't updated your code. |
| 14:24 | <Dominic Farolino> | I'm not sure we need the header in any case actually. |
| 14:29 | <annevk> | Dominic Farolino: people might want it to lock down capabilities, but it's somewhat questionable to only want to lock them down for workers, so maybe not. |
| 14:30 | <Dominic Farolino> | No I think you should be able to do that via the header, I agree. But I think supplying a header that must match the initiator's WorkerOptions{ allow: 'foo'} shouldn't be necessary. |
| 14:34 | <Yoav Weiss> | Luca Casonato: https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/10327#issuecomment-4980812710 contains the details for the OP checkboxes, but I don't have edit access to that. Any chance you can fill them in? |
| 14:42 | <annevk> | Yoav Weiss: can you review the tests? |
| 15:49 | <Yoav Weiss> | done! |