I agree with https://github.com/dbaron about Marcos’s suggestion doesn’t fit with a "defer" position. I also strongly disagree with even hinting that we might think this API is "non-harmful" when that hasn’t even been mentioned in https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/153 — in fact quite the opposite, I noted explicitly there that "I’m leaning towards expecting an eventual 'harmful' evaluation." So I’m not ok with moving it into the description, and that is unnecessary for a defer position. I’d like us to be able to actually defer rather than debate more details in the description. Re: "leaves their source unspecified", I’m ok with dropping that from the description, it’s not really an actionable criticism outside of a thorough evaluation. I’ll update the PR accordingly.

I agree with https://github.com/dbaron about Marcos’s suggestion doesn’t fit with a "defer" position.

I also strongly disagree with even hinting that we might think this API is "non-harmful" when that hasn’t even been mentioned in https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/153 — in fact quite the opposite, I noted explicitly there that "I’m leaning towards expecting an eventual 'harmful' evaluation."

So I’m not ok with moving it into the description, and that is unnecessary for a defer position. I’d like us to be able to actually defer rather than debate more details in the description.

Re: "leaves their source unspecified", I’m ok with dropping that from the description, it’s not really an actionable criticism outside of a thorough evaluation. I’ll update the PR accordingly.