Braw mornin' TAG!

I'm requesting a TAG review of Response.json().

Response.json(body) is a static method used to construct a Response object from the JSON serialisation of "body". It does what you would want new Response(body) to do if that was not ambiguous.

• Explainer¹ (minimally containing user needs and example code): https://github.com/ricea/response-json-explainer/blob/main/explainer.md
• Specification URL: https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-response-json
• Tests: https://wpt.fyi/results/fetch/api/response/response-static-json.any.html
• User research: N/A
• Security and Privacy self-review²: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GicefRvYuPrw2tsb8jdjileomK7TW7xYLkP37oz1FbQ/edit
• GitHub repo (if you prefer feedback filed there): https://github.com/whatwg/fetch
• Primary contacts (and their relationship to the specification):
  • Adam Rice (ricea), Google, proposing to ship this feature in Chromium.
  • Anne van Kesteren (annevk), Apple, specification change reviewer.
  • Luca Casonato (lucacasonato), Deno, specification change author.
• Organization(s)/project(s) driving the specification: Deno, Mozilla
• Key pieces of existing multi-stakeholder review or discussion of this specification: https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/issues/1389
• External status/issue trackers for this specification (publicly visible, e.g. Chrome Status): https://github.com/denoland/deno/pull/14566 https://github.com/nodejs/undici/pull/1452

Further details:

• [ X ] I have reviewed the TAG's Web Platform Design Principles
• Relevant time constraints or deadlines: As we already have an implementation ready to land, we would like to ship this soon in Chromium.
• The group where the work on this specification is currently being done: WHATWG
• The group where standardization of this work is intended to be done (if current group is a community group or other incubation venue): WHATWG
• Major unresolved issues with or opposition to this specification: None
• This work is being funded by: Google is paying me to write this document. The implementation in Chromium was done by a third-party, as was the specification work.

You should also know that...

It is a very small feature.

We'd prefer the TAG provide feedback as (please delete all but the desired option):

💬 leave review feedback as a comment in this issue and @-notify ricea, annevk, lucacasonato

¹ We require an explainer to give the relevant context for the spec review, even if the spec has some background information. For background, see our explanation of how to write a good explainer. We recommend the explainer to be in Markdown.

² A Security and Privacy questionnaire helps us understand potential security and privacy issues and mitigations for your design, and can save us asking redundant questions. See https://www.w3.org/TR/security-privacy-questionnaire/.