@foolip: Can you give us an exact reference to the material in the MSE spec that this issue is about?

@wolenetz: Is this related to the solution we applied to ISSUE-67?

It's https://w3c.github.io/media-source/#url and the [Exposed=Window, DedicatedWorker, SharedWorker] in the IDL. This matches https://w3c.github.io/FileAPI/#creating-revoking but is it intentional or just copy-pasted? In https://heycam.github.io/webidl/#Exposed I see nothing about the exposure set of a partial interface having to match the exposure set of the interface itself.

Ping @inexorabletash.

I probably provided bad guidance here. IIRC it was [Exposed=(Window,Worker)] and we wanted to ensure that none of the Blob-URL-minting functions were exposed to Service Workers. I probably suggested that this be scoped to specific workers (minimal change) rather than just window (correct change) due to not thinking about the feature itself.

Cool, so the fix here is to just make it [Exposed=Window]. Thanks @inexorabletash!

To be clear, if we continued to (probably mistakenly) allow createObjectURL within a DedicatedWorker or a SharedWorker, in what context might such a URL even be assignable to an HTMLMediaElement's src attribute? Are there similar exposure restrictions on any of HTMLMediaElement operation?

It's actually harmless since there's no way to get a MediaSource instance in a worker, and thus no way to generate such a URL. So consider this editorial.

SGTM. I'll prepare a pull request shortly, though I'll need @plehegar to help determine how exactly such a change might make it (is it a post-REC erratum, or something to include for REC; and either way, should this be on mainline gh-pages here?)

@plehegar, a second question: we currently have a registries-publication branch that is a few commits ahead of gh-pages, should we just fast-forward gh-pages to that, or is that branch intentional since it's expected that registry changes can occur without impacting main v1 spec in future?

@jdsmith3000 @paulbrucecotton @mwatson2 Also, pending @plehegar's response to my questions, above, triaging this bug to a particular Milestone is TBD.

My understanding is that the change is editorial, so I'd expect to include the change as part of the Proposed Recommendation.

re registries, I created the branch for pull request purpose. I'm fine with synchronizing and remove the branch.