Sync the SecurityPolicyViolationEvent interface with the spec

Sync the SecurityPolicyViolationEvent interface with the spec

http://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/content-security-policy/#securitypolicyviolationevent-interface

BUG=460722
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=196517

[philipj_slow, 2015-06-03 19:01:47]

philipj@opera.com changed reviewers:
+ mkwst@chromium.org

[philipj_slow, 2015-06-03 19:01:48]

PTAL. What should we do about these discrepancies with the spec? Should I just
throw on [Measure] and change them if the usage is low enough?

[Mike West, 2015-06-03 19:36:45]

On 2015/06/03 at 19:01:48, philipj wrote:
> PTAL. What should we do about these discrepancies with the spec? Should I just
throw on [Measure] and change them if the usage is low enough?

SGTM. Does `implementedAs` work for attributes? Might be reasonable to add the
correct spellings now and deprecate/remove the URI version later.

Patch LGTM regardless.

[philipj_slow, 2015-06-03 21:20:07]

On 2015/06/03 19:36:45, Mike West wrote:
> On 2015/06/03 at 19:01:48, philipj wrote:
> > PTAL. What should we do about these discrepancies with the spec? Should I
just
> throw on [Measure] and change them if the usage is low enough?
> 
> SGTM. Does `implementedAs` work for attributes? Might be reasonable to add the
> correct spellings now and deprecate/remove the URI version later.
> 
> Patch LGTM regardless.

Yep, that works for attributes but for the init dict one would have to do
something manually, checking both in the constructor or something.

If the per-spec spellings are added now, how would you rate the risk that we're
stuck with both forever? Do you have any hunch about how widely used this event
might be already?

[philipj_slow, 2015-06-04 13:17:42]

I added [Measure], depending on the usage one of three things could make sense:

Zero usage: Change to *URL immediately.

Low usage: Add *URL, deprecate *URI and then remove *URI.

High usage: Push back on the spec change.

[philipj_slow, 2015-06-04 13:17:45]

The CQ bit was checked by philipj@opera.com

[philipj_slow, 2015-06-04 13:17:46]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from mkwst@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1157923004/#ps20001
(title: "Use [Measure]")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-04 13:18:19]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1157923004/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-04 16:00:20]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-04 16:00:21]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  win_blink_rel on tryserver.blink (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.blink/builders/win_blink_rel/builds/65304)

[philipj_slow, 2015-06-04 16:55:33]

The CQ bit was checked by philipj@opera.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-04 16:55:49]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1157923004/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-04 18:15:01]

Committed patchset #2 (id:20001) as
https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=196517