- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 16:21:58 +0000 (UTC)
- To: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
On Tue, 2 Oct 2012, James Graham wrote: > On 10/02/2012 02:34 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > On 10/1/12 6:10 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > > On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > > > On 6/19/12 1:56 PM, Charlie Reis wrote: > > > > > That's from the "[if] the user agent determines that the two > > > > > browsing contexts are related enough that it is ok if they reach > > > > > each other" part, which is quite vague. > > > > > > > > This is, imo, the part that says unrelated browsing contexts > > > > should not be able to reach each other by name. > > > > > > > > It's only vague because hixie wanted all current implementations > > > > to be conforming, I think. Which I believe is a mistake. > > > > > > I'm happy to make the spec not match implementations, if the > > > implementations are going to change to match the spec. :-) > > > > I certainly plan to change Gecko to make this stuff less lose there. > > I have no idea why this part of the spec is special enough to get > undefined behaviour when we have tried to avoid it on general principle > everywhere else. Can you figure out how to describe what browsers do in more detail than the spec currently gives, and in a way where it makes sense to allow what that description covers but not subtly different things? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2012 16:37:38 UTC