Add '[SecureContext]` tags to the interfaces

[OnkarRuikar]

• addresses Extract 'SecureContext' status in json files w3c/webref#1142 (comment)

w3c/webref repo automatically extracts syntaxes from these spec docs. At the moment some syntax sections are missing the [SecureContext] tags so it is missing from extracted data in webref as well.

The feature has been marked secure in MDN docs.

The PR adds the tags to the remaining interfaces.

---

Preview | Diff

[annevk]

I think these end up being redundant because the interfaces they are extending are already limited to secure contexts. We usually don't specify things redundantly.

[OnkarRuikar]

I think these end up being redundant because the interfaces they are extending are already limited to secure contexts. We usually don't specify things redundantly.

I see. What about ExtendableCookieChangeEvent

[annevk]

If you're only exposed to the ServiceWorker global you are by definition limited to secure contexts because the ServiceWorker global is only exposed to secure contexts.

[OnkarRuikar]

If you're only exposed to the ServiceWorker global you are by definition limited to secure contexts because the ServiceWorker global is only exposed to secure contexts.

@annevk We want to make it explicit so that the automated w3c/webref extractor can pick this fact correctly.

[annevk]

I don't think we want to add redundancy to standards for the benefit of tooling. Instead the tooling should be fixed. Could you file an issue against w3c/webref? Feel free to at-mention me if you think that would help.