[whatwg] Proposal for Links to Unrelated Browsing Contexts
ian at hixie.ch
Tue Oct 2 09:21:58 PDT 2012
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. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg