-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.8k
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
"fallback base URL" algorithm seems wrong for popups? #9310
Comments
WebKit does inherit here. cc @cdumez |
Yeah Chrome doesn't seem to match the spec here I guess. Maybe we should file a Chome bug? |
I think WebKit is the odd-one-out and inheriting isn't necessarily better. I guess it depends on what else gets inherited and what would make sense from a policy container point-of-view. |
Demos: window.open(), window.open('about:blank')
My result is different from what @domenic said in OP for Chrome. Tested with
|
I've found a bit more background on this. @wjmaclean has been looking into about:blank URL inheritance, mostly for iframes, but he also plans to work on it for popups. See this Chromium doc. This is mostly captured in #421; in particular see my summary in #421 (comment). This might also explain why Simon and I saw different results, if Simon was testing with experimental web platform features on in his Chrome Canary, or if these changes are rolling out to 50% or similar (which is pretty common on Canary channel). It seems like there is a separate issue here where I will file a Chromium issue to help @wjmaclean remember to write web platform tests for the popup cases in addition to the iframe cases which he's already written tests for. With this in mind, let me close this issue and re-title #421 to also mention popups. |
https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#fallback-base-url
From what I can tell, popups from
window.open()
will have a creator base URL.But, if I do
window.open()
(no args) orwindow.open("about:blank")
, and then check the opened window in the dev console, I get:Am I missing something, or is this fairly basic part of the spec wrong?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: