- From: bvandersloot-mozilla <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2025 06:59:13 -0700
- To: w3c/ServiceWorker <ServiceWorker@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
- Message-ID: <w3c/ServiceWorker/pull/1775/review/2900467786@github.com>
@bvandersloot-mozilla commented on this pull request. > @@ -3065,6 +3065,8 @@ spec: storage; urlPrefix: https://storage.spec.whatwg.org/ :: Return |serviceWorker|'s [=service worker/script url=]. : The [=environment settings object/origin=] :: Return its registering [=/service worker client=]'s [=environment settings object/origin=]. + : The [=environment settings object/cross site ancestry=] + :: Return its registering [=/service worker client=]'s [=environment settings object/cross site ancestry=]. Okay, that makes sense! Thank you for clearing that up. I think this actually works fine in the case that storage partitioning is enabled because the cross-site ancestry will be the same between the frame initiating the fetch and the worker handling it. Currently there are some plans to specify all of the storage partitioning implementation changes, particularly from @kyraseevers. The spec works as-is because of some hand-waving in Fetch in how `SameSite` is handled. Would it be reasonable to add an inline issue somewhere in this spec pointing out that if storage partitioning is disabled, the invocation of fetch should be done with a client with `cross site ancestry` matching the initiating client? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/w3c/ServiceWorker/pull/1775#discussion_r2128930939 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: <w3c/ServiceWorker/pull/1775/review/2900467786@github.com>
Received on Thursday, 5 June 2025 13:59:17 UTC