-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.6k
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
"allowed to use" active document, browsing context container... #2143
Comments
Here's the thing. The phrase "allowed to use" appears in HTML in three places: the definitions of the Looking at Gecko's implementation, we do have But generally speaking, this algorithm as written means that whether the thing is allowed or not can change during the lifetime of the document, due to attribute changes on arbitrary ancestor It's possible that for |
According to #2184 (comment) the page that was previously broken by allowfullscreen not being live has now changed, so it may be possible to move back to the snapshot model used by <iframe sandbox> and Feature Policy. Fixes #2143. This partially reverts 9f6b91c.
According to #2184 (comment) the page that was previously broken by allowfullscreen not being live has now changed, so it may be possible to move back to the snapshot model used by <iframe sandbox> and Feature Policy. Fixes #2143. This partially reverts 9f6b91c.
New allow* attributes should use the snapshot model used by <iframe sandbox> and Feature Policy. The allowfullscreen attributes is left with its current live behavior in this change, because it is not yet clear if it is web-compatible to change it (see #2187). Test: web-platform-tests/wpt#4369. Part of #2143.
I think this issue can be closed now. @bzbarsky agree? |
Maybe we should make sure there are tests for this though. |
New allow* attributes should use the snapshot model used by <iframe sandbox> and Feature Policy. The allowfullscreen attributes is left with its current live behavior in this change, because it is not yet clear if it is web-compatible to change it (see whatwg#2187). Test: web-platform-tests/wpt#4369. Part of whatwg#2143.
@clelland do you know if there are tests for this? (The spec was fixed, but we left the issue open to track adding tests.) |
There are a few things in this issue, so I'm not sure specifically which one we were holding it open for:
|
Sorry for not being clear, and thanks for tracking those down!! The main change I was concerned about was the active document check. Do you know about if there are tests that ensure that even if a document would be allowed to use a feature due to |
In w3c/payment-request#361 (comment) @bzbarsky wrote:
We don't check if document is the active document in "allowed to use".
https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#allowed-to-use currently says
https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#creator-browsing-context for iframe is the same as:
https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#parent-browsing-context which is defined in terms of:
https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#child-browsing-context
So... Shadow DOM should be considered here also. It is not clear to me yet if that is the only difference between parent browsing context and walking up the browsing context container.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: