# Should the secure context overview be using compat tables? **URL:** \ **Category:** MDN\ **Created:** [May 8, 2019, 7:53pm UTC](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/should-the-secure-context-overview-be-using-compat-tables/40096 "2019-05-08T19:53:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1

**Author:** ![freaktechnik](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/user_avatar/discourse.mozilla.org/freaktechnik/32/37766_2.png) [@freaktechnik](https://discourse.mozilla.org/u/freaktechnik)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2019, 7:53pm UTC](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/should-the-secure-context-overview-be-using-compat-tables/40096/1 "2019-05-08T19:53:54Z")

I’ve just found this page on MDN: [https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Security/Secure\_Contexts/features\_restricted\_to\_secure\_contexts](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Security/Secure_Contexts/features_restricted_to_secure_contexts) It’s essentially two compat tables, however it currently uses two traditional tables. I understand that this is most likely an issue of being able to generate tables with the required information based on the compat data? ---

**Author:** ![exe-boss](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/user_avatar/discourse.mozilla.org/exe-boss/32/43293_2.png) [@exe-boss](https://discourse.mozilla.org/u/exe-boss)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2019, 10:27pm UTC](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/should-the-secure-context-overview-be-using-compat-tables/40096/2 "2019-05-08T22:27:43Z")

Well, some features are only available in secure contexts from the start, which makes them not have the `secure_context_required` sub‑feature, as it’s used only when the implementation version differs from the restricting behind secure context version (the second table). ---

**Author:** ![freaktechnik](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/user_avatar/discourse.mozilla.org/freaktechnik/32/37766_2.png) [@freaktechnik](https://discourse.mozilla.org/u/freaktechnik)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2019, 10:29pm UTC](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/should-the-secure-context-overview-be-using-compat-tables/40096/3 "2019-05-08T22:29:39Z")

Shouldn’t that case be detectable based on the version of the browser it was added in, since the secure context policies were introduced at a specific point in the browser release history? Or is the issue that there’d be exceptions? ---

**Author:** ![exe-boss](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/user_avatar/discourse.mozilla.org/exe-boss/32/43293_2.png) [@exe-boss](https://discourse.mozilla.org/u/exe-boss)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2019, 10:32pm UTC](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/should-the-secure-context-overview-be-using-compat-tables/40096/4 "2019-05-08T22:32:01Z")

The issue is that there’d be exceptions1 and we can’t just use **BCD** directly for this because of that. 1 Newer secure context only APIs are restricted to secure contexts by default from the get‑go, which means that **BCD** doesn’t include `secure_context_required` as it’s only used when an API is restricted to secure contexts after it has already been shipped. ---

**Author:** ![freaktechnik](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/user_avatar/discourse.mozilla.org/freaktechnik/32/37766_2.png) [@freaktechnik](https://discourse.mozilla.org/u/freaktechnik)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2019, 8:56am UTC](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/should-the-secure-context-overview-be-using-compat-tables/40096/5 "2019-05-09T08:56:26Z")

Right, that’s what I was talking about. There’s a point when browsers decided that new (web) APIs would only be available in secure contexts. Thus there should be a version number, from which all newly added APIs would only be available in secure contexts, thus the list of APIs being everything that was added \>= that version. I fear that there would still be exceptions to that rule, as in APIs that weren’t added for secure contexts only after that point.