Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] User Activation Delegation through postMessages (#347)

I see your perspective from "input vs capabilities" now, thanks.  Here are our takes on that:

- Delegating user activation doesn't exclude the delegating (or even suppressing) capabilities.  They are in fact orthogonal.  Suppose we would add a "popup delegation" API in future, then we may still have a use-case like "this subframe can open popups but only with its own user activation", right?

- I see that the ability to delegate capabilities would give developers more fine-grained control on what to delegate or what not to.  But the "orthogonality argument" above means activation transfer doesn't take that finer-control away.  E.g. a top frame can delegate user input to a subframe, and still say "disallow fullscreen".

- We have specific cases where developers want to transfer user activation from one frame to a "controller" frame.  See the regression I mentioned in my first post above.  [Here](https://crbug.com/932884) is another example.

In summary, we already have capability delegation today (say `<iframe allow=...>` attributes), and it's natural expect more from individual API owners.  Activation delegation makes this notion more powerful and useful IMHO.


-- 
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/design-reviews/issues/347#issuecomment-479166831