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

Here's a bit of history: https://github.com/w3c/ServiceWorker/issues/586. We separated `installEvent.replace()` out to 'self.skipWaiting()` and `clients.claim()`. `replace()` had been designed to do both automatically back then.

> That's probably wrong, now, though. The spec at some point was changed such that the Client has a specific service worker:

I changed this part of the spec. It's nothing but moving the active service worker internal slot from the previous concept of service worker client (an environment settings object) to environment because we needed to attach a controller before the actual environment settings object/global object/document are created.

> The skipWaiting() algorithm now needs to go update all those values.

We separated it out from `installEvent.replace()` to not update the values automatically. I'll need to find more history why we thought it should be. I recall it was driven by some devs requirement though. 

-- 
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-288601730