Re: [w3c/permissions] Handle non-fully-active documents (#162)

@marcoscaceres, what do you think about @fergald's suggestion to spec #2? Sorry to backtrack a bit, but I discussed this with Fergal a couple weeks ago and now lean towards making existing feature's spec to ensure pages would "just work" without having to deal with new BFCache expectations, both here and for the Geolocation API we updated a while back.

I think that aligns better with the [Priority of Constituencies](https://www.w3.org/TR/design-principles/#priority-of-constituencies) - if we leave the responsibility to the developer to proactively update their sites to handle bfcache, end users might end up suffering weird cases they might have no idea about on sites that has no idea about BFCache. Specifying ways to make existing usage of existing APIs to more or less seamlessly work with BFCache seems to be the right choice, as the burden should be on browsers to make sure things will work (either by expending effort to support the features, or disabling BFCache when that's not possible). It does complicate the spec a bit, but we'll be happy to help writing them if needed!

-- 
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/permissions/issues/162#issuecomment-896472965