Is get() not explicit enough?

[mozfreddyb]

During code review, our Firefox webidl reviewers pointed out that it's not entirely intuitive for a function get() to return a configuration dictionary.

One suggestion was to use a property instead of a function (e.g., readonly attribute SanitizerConfig configuration;), but I believe we had reasons why this ought to be a function?

[annevk]

It should be a method as we want to return a new object each time. We could call it snapshot() I suppose.

(Currently toJSON() would also be an option, but I think that's too constraining going forward, when we might well have callbacks or some such.)

[mozfreddyb]

Yes, we agreed that JSON might be too constraining. A potential v2 feature was that other Sanitizers provide callbacks when sanitizing attributes/elements and that can not be represented in JSON.

[smaug----]

If it returns a "Configuration", calling it configuration() would be least surprising.

[annevk]

I don't like that name. It returns the Sanitzer instance as a dictionary. We call that dictionary SanitizerConfig at the moment, but that's an internal name that doesn't really convey all that much information to web developers.

[lukewarlow]

Perhaps leave it as get() and flag it as part of Tag Review?

[smaug----]

Well, shouldn't API designers propose well named methods :) It shouldn't be up to the reviewers.
get() clearly doesn't indicate at all what it is returning.

Is it almost like toJSON() if it is really about Sanitizer as a dictionary?

[annevk]

See #258 (comment).