Re: [w3c/ServiceWorker] should clients.claim() control reserved Clients? (#1090)

A corner case that I'm concerned about is when the reserved client's active service worker is handling the main resource fetch while a new active worker is claiming. (The reserved client is considered being controlled already.) If this reserved client is excluded from `clients.claim()` of a new active worker, only this reserved client will have a different controller (likely a redundant worker) from other clients that are under the same registration's scope.

That said, I think reserved clients should be considered the same as other clients for `clients.claim()`. But this would make us require the reserved client's creation URL to be set to the request URL which you didn't support through https://github.com/w3c/ServiceWorker/issues/1034.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/ServiceWorker/issues/1090#issuecomment-288275168