W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > October 2012

Re: [whatwg] Proposal for Links to Unrelated Browsing Contexts

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 16:21:58 +0000 (UTC)
To: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1210021620550.1904@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
On Tue, 2 Oct 2012, James Graham wrote:
> On 10/02/2012 02:34 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> > On 10/1/12 6:10 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > > On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> > > > On 6/19/12 1:56 PM, Charlie Reis wrote:
> > > > > That's from the "[if] the user agent determines that the two 
> > > > > browsing contexts are related enough that it is ok if they reach 
> > > > > each other" part, which is quite vague.
> > > > 
> > > > This is, imo, the part that says unrelated browsing contexts 
> > > > should not be able to reach each other by name.
> > > > 
> > > > It's only vague because hixie wanted all current implementations 
> > > > to be conforming, I think.  Which I believe is a mistake.
> > > 
> > > I'm happy to make the spec not match implementations, if the 
> > > implementations are going to change to match the spec. :-)
> > 
> > I certainly plan to change Gecko to make this stuff less lose there.
> 
> I have no idea why this part of the spec is special enough to get 
> undefined behaviour when we have tried to avoid it on general principle 
> everywhere else.

Can you figure out how to describe what browsers do in more detail than 
the spec currently gives, and in a way where it makes sense to allow what 
that description covers but not subtly different things?

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2012 16:37:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 18:48:10 GMT