Re: [w3ctag/spec-reviews] Write up the Secure Stop issue for ddorwin (#73)

Hey all,

I've spoken with @travisleithead at this week's F2F TAG meeting and what we have come to understand by looking at this from many angles is that:

 - The bits of browsers that are defined by specs don't currently have any way of specing the behavior that Secure Stop implies, at least not the low-latency notification version that seems to be implied. But it's hard to know what's actually being requested by the proposed feature as it seems under-specified in this dimension. 
 - Without outlining a set of processes that live longer than documents, this feature looks strange and out of step with the platform.
 - While we'd obviously support explaining more of the platform, our best guess is that enumerating enough of the browser behavior to find a natural place for Secure Stop behavior will take several years of spec spelunking. The efforts that seems like they're in some way looking at this sort of outside-the-document behavior are very early (e.g. efforts to standardize Extensions).
 - Given that it doesn't make sense to include this feature if it can't be explained, our strong guidance is to move this to a V2 where it can receive the attention it really needs to be well-layered in the platform.

Thanks

---
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/spec-reviews/issues/73#issuecomment-203990395