Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Make BrowserContext spec-compliant #5238

Closed
jdm opened this issue Mar 17, 2015 · 6 comments
Closed

Make BrowserContext spec-compliant #5238

jdm opened this issue Mar 17, 2015 · 6 comments

Comments

@jdm
Copy link
Member

@jdm jdm commented Mar 17, 2015

In practical terms, this means the frame tree on the script side should consist of BrowserContext values, with navigations causing the active document to be replaced. Any concept of a bfcache in the script task should store Document pointers.

Blocks #5236.

@benschulz
Copy link
Contributor

@benschulz benschulz commented Jun 27, 2015

I read "make BrowserContext spec-compliant" as "make BrowserContexts persist across document loads within them". I.e. HTMLFrameElement and HTMLIFrameElement each own an unchanging BrowserContext, which points to the document it's currently displaying.

How is that supposed to work w.r.t. cross-origin/different eTLD frames though? As far as I understand Documents should not escape their script task. Therefore the BrowserContext of a frame with a cross-origin src can't point to the document it's displaying.

What am I missing/misunderstanding?

@jdm
Copy link
Member Author

@jdm jdm commented Jun 28, 2015

Yes, we need to introduce a concept of opaque, proxy browsing contexts for cross-origin documents per #5242.

@KiChjang
Copy link
Member

@KiChjang KiChjang commented Jan 25, 2017

I believe we have since renamed the struct as BrowsingContext.

@jdm
Copy link
Member Author

@jdm jdm commented Jan 25, 2017

Much of this is addressed by #15120.

@KiChjang
Copy link
Member

@KiChjang KiChjang commented Aug 5, 2017

Should this be closed then?

@jdm
Copy link
Member Author

@jdm jdm commented Aug 6, 2017

I guess so!

@jdm jdm closed this Aug 6, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
3 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.