Re: [w3c/ServiceWorker] consider Client behavior for windows where initial about:blank is replaced with a loaded document (#1091)

Finally caught up with this, sorry for not pitching in sooner.

In the case of:

1. New iframe (initially `about:blank`).
1. Navigate iframe to same origin URL (by changing the `location` or `src`).

>From reading https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/iframe-embed-object.html#process-the-iframe-attributes, it seems `clientId` should be the client that represents the `about:blank` iframe, even if it's the `src` attribute being changed.

I don't like using `reservedClientId` to represent a client that already exists, but my objection is only in the naming. I'm happy to drop `reservedClientId` and replace it with @wanderview's  `initialClientId`, which (unless I'm mistaken) represents "The client ID of the resulting navigation/worker", which may already exist like in the `about:blank` case. I'm still not convinced of the naming though. `resultingClientId` anyone?

`targetClientId` should be the `about:blank` client. I was wrong to suggest it should be null. In case it matters: I was stuck on the idea that `targetClientId` represents a client that would go away if `reservedClientId` comes to life, but I don't think this needs to be the case.

-- 
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/1091#issuecomment-311013742