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

> It was not really old scope vs. new scope but more a way of implementing your idea of a registration with a list of scopes.

Yes, I agree implementations will need a lookup index from each individual scope to the registration to perform navigation url matching.

The spec, though, needs a unique, immutable key in various places to lookup registrations.  For example, you can have multiple jobs in the queue with keys baked into the structures to lookup registrations.  You can't just hold registrations instead because the registrations may be removed before the job runs.   If you try to use the scope as a key the scope could change before the job executes.  Therefore I don't think we can use scope here without a lot of added complexity to detect and handle these edge cases.

-- 
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-712258755