Require `[SecureContext]` for interfaces with `[Exposed=ServiceWorker]` or not?
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Bikeshed
- Stars
- 3.6k
- Forks
- 324
- Avg merge
- 14d 22h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 1
Description
The current spec only adds [Exposed] to all service-worker-specific interfaces except ServiceWorkerGlobalScope. Other specs also generally prefers not to give SecureContext, per webref:
- Specs with SecureContext: push-api
- Specs without SecureContext: content-index, background-sync, background-fetch, payment-handle, cookie-store, periodic-background-sync
Gecko and Blink do not add [SecureContext] for those interfaces but WebKit does. (For Gecko, devtools allows non-secure context to temporarily run service worker so SecureContext doesn't make a lot of sense)
Given there's no spec other than push-api that adds SecureContext I filed https://github.com/w3c/push-api/issues/397, but then found there's no explicit agreement nor guideline, and so the issue here.
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by comparing the Service Worker interfaces with the webref search results cited in the issue, then read the linked push-api issue. The work is complete when the project reaches and documents an explicit decision or guideline for whether these service-worker interfaces require [SecureContext].
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100