Re: [w3c/ServiceWorker] consider allowing a non-scope identifier for registrations (#1512)

I'm not sure I understand, can you expand on the risk you are thinking of?

Perhaps the question is around what happens in the scenario:

1. Old version is active and controlling clients.
2. New version is installing and the new scope would not match the controlled clients from (1).
3. New version calls skipWaiting().

What happens?  It seems skipWaiting() should either (a) cause the clients that no longer match the scope to stop being controlled or (b) fail to promote new version to active if there are non-matching controlled clients in play.

-- 
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/1512#issuecomment-611047352