- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:24:44 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > They can use window.open() today. It's just that it causes a bit of > flicker for now. IMHO the flicker is just a bug we should fix. > > Introducing a new API that literally doesn't do anything you can't already > do is a pretty high cost, IMHO. It seems there are some potential differences: * You cannot detect if window.open() failed (e.g. the user declined to open the application or the browser failed to find an application) * If the scheme is mapped to an http/https URL it is unclear: ** whether you get a new top-level browsing context or if you get an auxiliary browsing context (i.e. what window.opener return?) ** if a referrer is included ** if credentials are included And the open question for those is whether those differences are desirable and should perhaps be configurable. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2014 11:25:16 UTC