-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31
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
Renaming methods to prefix them with add
make it clear there is a modification of the instance
#238
Comments
Proposals: A
B
C
D
E
(I don't like E as it's not internally consistent.) |
I'm assuming this issue is referring to this part of the spec: dictionary SanitizerConfig {
sequence<SanitizerElementWithAttributes> elements;
sequence<SanitizerElement> removeElements;
sequence<SanitizerElement> replaceWithChildrenElements;
sequence<SanitizerAttribute> attributes;
sequence<SanitizerAttribute> removeAttributes;
boolean comments;
boolean dataAttributes;
}; However, that also doesn't explain what these functions actually do. Could there please be some JavaDoc-style comment in human-readable English (no pseudo-code)? What does this actually do?
Given that the interface is called |
Or, for 2., even better (similar to E):
It's completely unclear to me what |
No, this is in relation to #237. |
OK. From what I understand from #237, this is about modifying the filter lists (allow lists and deny lists), right? If so: My suggestion would be:
And for clearing maybe, based on discussion in #237:
|
What is the internal consistency issue in (E)? I would prefer (A) and (E), as I find terminologies like |
For me: (A) + (E) are preferred; then (D), then (B) and (C). I'm happy to go with the majority, though.
The dictionary has |
I think the dictionary experience would be worse with My preference order: B, C, D, A, E. Arguably Fetch's Looking at E, while say |
Would we get to a somewhat saner place if we went with terminology that focuses on the use-case, replacing-with-children(blocking), removing, ... rather than list operations? |
I am filing this on behalf of @annevk who was making this point in an earlier meeting:
I suggest we do this independent of #237, so I'm splitting this out.
I'm also asking everyone to wait for @annevk to describe this further so we are not arguing against a strawman.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: