Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] Other Spec Review: Responsively-sized iframes (Issue #1223)

dandclark left a comment (w3ctag/design-reviews#1223)

Since it looks like fenced frames will be sticking around in Chrome per https://privacysandbox.google.com/overview/status it would be good if the explainer could elaborate a bit more on why [they're excluded](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/blob/main/css-sizing-4/responsive-iframes-explainer.md#privacy-and-security:~:text=Fenced%20frames%20are%20excluded%20from%20this%20feature). Presumably this is in line with `<fencedframe>`'s design goal of limiting communication between the embedder and embedee, but it'd be good for the explainer to call this out as something that needs to be a permanent exclusion rather than something that might be implemented later.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1223#issuecomment-4974875311
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1223/4974875311@github.com>