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

Clarify or remove note on units of related browsing contexts and units of related similar-origin browsing contexts #7169

Closed
j9t opened this issue Oct 6, 2021 · 4 comments

Comments

@j9t
Copy link
Contributor

j9t commented Oct 6, 2021

7.1.4 features the following note:

The HTML Standard used to define "unit of related browsing contexts" and "unit of related similar-origin browsing contexts". These have been removed as they were not adequate.

This leaves readers hanging:

  • If this is important, what are the definitions, or where could one find them (link, even to the “not adequate” definitions)?
  • If these are not important, why bother mentioning these?

(If these are not relevant, I’m happy to submit a PR taking out the note.)

@domenic
Copy link
Member

domenic commented Oct 7, 2021

The main point of this note is to have something for https://whatwg.org/working-mode#anchors . It's not really that important to give people an explanation of these obsolete concepts; if they want that they can find the relevant PRs and issues.

@j9t
Copy link
Contributor Author

j9t commented Oct 7, 2021

Thanks for clarifying. (Just calling it out, that seems process-focused, but not user-focused.)

If this must stay to serve the internal link requirement, how about giving the user something to work with, like providing adequate definitions, showing the inadequate definitions (readers will understand if this is accompanied by a note), or linking to a previous revision?

@domenic
Copy link
Member

domenic commented Oct 7, 2021

I don't think that's necessary, as I said above. It's best if readers without the necessary context just ignore these.

@annevk
Copy link
Member

annevk commented Oct 7, 2021

I think acknowledging these existed and are obsolete serves a purpose for users of the specification. If they come across these terms in software and look them up they will realize they will have to adjust things. Same as if you are looking up bgsound and find out it does close-to-nothing.

@j9t j9t closed this as completed Jan 28, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants