Conversation
|
Size Change: +82 B (+2.39%) Total Size: 3.52 kB
ℹ️ View Unchanged
|
c45b5da to
702ea88
Compare
414bd48 to
4493793
Compare
2691a08 to
48a131b
Compare
48a131b to
eff2e3d
Compare
6aca314 to
301658d
Compare
301658d to
4d13079
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
theoretically you could forge a html object if you got your hands on the html_tag (e.g. via
Object.getOwnPropertySymbols).private properties are unforgeable, so now everything must go through the intended constructor.
does this meaningfully improve security/size?