Expose some Web APIs on ShadowRealms

[Ms2ger]

Meta issue - relevant changes will be made to the Web specs.

• Expose everywhere w3c/hr-time#130
• Expose everywhere w3c/performance-timeline#193
• Expose everywhere w3c/resource-timing#302
• Expose everywhere w3c/server-timing#84
• Expose everywhere w3c/user-timing#85
• Expose everywhere whatwg/console#209
• Expose events/aborts everywhere whatwg/dom#1024
• Expose everywhere whatwg/encoding#274
• Expose Error/PromiseRejectionEvent everywhere whatwg/html#7244
• Expose everywhere whatwg/streams#1176
• Expose URL/URLSearchParams everywhere whatwg/url#657
• Expose everywhere whatwg/compression#40
• Expose everywhere WICG/scheduling-apis#51
• [js-api] Expose everywhere WebAssembly/spec#1550

[Ms2ger]

Depends on whatwg/webidl#526

[annevk]

This has implementer interest, so I'm thinking that once there are tests and there's bugs filed, we merge all the relevant WHATWG PRs together. Does that seem reasonable?

cc @domenic @padenot @codehag

[codehag]

That sounds reasonable to me.

[Ms2ger]

I put a checklist in the issue summary

[smaug----]

How did we get this list of things to expose everywhere? There are some very surprising APIs in the list.

[bakkot]

@smaug---- Anything in particular?

[smaug----]

Especially Scheduling API, but possibly also resource timing, if fetch isn't really exposed.
And PromiseRejectionEvent is odd if the global in ShadowRealm is just a normal JS object, not an EventTarget.

[leobalter]

@smaug---- on the scheduling API we followed the advice we got there and decided to not add it (that issue is now closed and removed).

We had a sync with some implementers and other stakeholders that resolved into this list. I believe we can work this out.

Perhaps a similar flexibility can be observed to resource timing. @Ms2ger WDYT?

[Ms2ger]

Happy to reconsider, of course. I don't claim to fully understand resource timing, but perhaps it is useful for tracking module loading?

[littledan]

It looks like all of the relevant PRs to various specs have landed, with the sole exception of console (just blocking on manual tests--maybe we should just push back on that request). The only thing I see missing is some machinery in WebIDL: I don't think these APIs are actually exposed to ShadowRealm at the moment, as ShadowRealm is not an interface. We should probably add some plumbing in WebIDL to handle it specially.

[annevk]

I think it would be better to make the relevant requirements in HTML, as that already deals with most of the globals of the web platform and integration with ShadowRealm.

[littledan]

@annevk How would this be handled in HTML? I explained the concrete problem here; it's hard for me to imagine the fix coming in HTML without HTML reaching rather deep into WebIDL.

[Ms2ger]

Everything I wanted to do in this issue is done.