Thanks for digging into spec question, Hubert. LGTM2, contingent on WPTs landing (to Yoav's point).
Best, Alex On Monday, March 9, 2026 at 7:45:27 AM UTC-7 Hubert Chao wrote: > Following up, we've convinced ourselves that this fix is actually > adhering to the current spec. Specifically, inside the navigate step > <https://w3c.github.io/ServiceWorker/#client-navigate:~:text=HandleNavigate%3A%20Navigate%20browsingContext%20to%20url%2C%20using%20browsingContext%E2%80%99s%20associated%20document%2C%20with%20exceptionsEnabled%20true.> > it > says: > > HandleNavigate: Navigate browsingContext to url, using browsingContext’s > associated document, with exceptionsEnabled true. > > where browsingContext is the ServiceWorkerClient context (link > <https://w3c.github.io/ServiceWorker/#client-navigate:~:text=Let%20browsingContext%20be%20this%E2%80%99s%20browsing%20context.>), > > and not the service worker's browsing context. > > We've also consulted with navigation-dev@, and think the impact of this is > limited to the LNA check (see > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/navigation-dev/c/HAVTdd4NpBc) > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 2:12 PM Hubert Chao <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2026 at 10:59 AM Rick Byers <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 10:03 AM Hubert Chao <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tuesday, February 10, 2026 at 8:42:40 PM UTC-5 [email protected] >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Is any spec update (https://wicg.github.io/local-network-access) >>>> needed to reflect this change or is this behavior implied by what's >>>> already >>>> there? >>>> >>>> >>>> I added a quick update to it just now (meant to do it yesterday but got >>>> sidetracked). See >>>> https://wicg.github.io/local-network-access/#issue-f5cf3665 >>>> >>> >>> Normally our bar for spec work is that an algorithm is described >>> precisely somewhere, whether in the official spec, a monkey patch spec like >>> this or a PR. Normally an open issue would not be considered sufficient for >>> an I2S. With firefox now implementing, I assume there'd be support for >>> getting spec changes landed in the HTML spec, is that right? To what extent >>> are you / your team actively engaged in driving the upstream spec work for >>> LNA? >>> >> >> Driving spec changes is something that is on the team's roadmap; we'd >> intended to be further along but other work to stick the launch has been >> taking time away from this (most notably splitting the permissions >> <https://chromestatus.com/feature/5068298146414592> and adding more >> enterprise policies(rollout step 4 in here >> <https://chromestatus.com/feature/5152728072060928>)). >> >> Interestingly enough, the spec might already state the behaviour I'm >> proposing for this I2S. Checking with others to see if I'm reading it wrong >> or not. >> >> >>> Not having WPTs for this increases the interoperability risk (e.g. >>>> Increases the probability that Firefox folks forget about this particular >>>> part). >>>> Can you bump up the priority of adding these WPTs? >>>> >>> >>> +1, now that Firefox is shipping WPTs are really essential (or we should >>> assume there will be interop issues). >>> >> >> Agreed, we've been talking with Firefox about this as well. >> >> /hubert >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/0a5439be-e871-4945-ae8c-1f3dcdf679b7n%40chromium.org.
