Sorry for the delay, I was Travelling, OOO, then Covid. Sorry, one more question: the tests seem to be mostly failing on wpt.fyi > <https://wpt.fyi/results/html/anonymous-iframe?label=master&label=experimental&aligned&view=subtest&q=html%2Fanonymous-iframe> > even > with --enable-experimental-web-platform-features. Do you know why that is? > What's the status of the test suite? >
Thanks for noticing. That was about how the feature is declared. Let's fix <https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4003037> it. A few questions, is there any plan to move the spec code into HTML or > other relevant specs? Do we have PRs for that? > Yes & Yes. The anonymous iframe spec <https://wicg.github.io/anonymous-iframe/> is a set of small patches against the HTML, Fetch, Storage, and Cookie specification. A link to described patch is given before each section: [image: image.png] There's another feature called "Fenced frames" > (https://chromestatus.com/feature/5699388062040064) that is currently > being worked on. Wouldn't be nice to explain how anonymous iframes vs > fencedrames are? And if they interact in some way or not? Would > fencedrames need an anonymous attribute at some point? Maybe we could > add some of this information into the explainer. > There are 2 WPT <https://wpt.fyi/results/html/anonymous-iframe?label=master&label=experimental&aligned&view=subtest&q=fenced> and a doc <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bIjqZ9tDN-DhH99h6iAb1O0-TIArGjQJXR6STmdvaCQ/edit#heading=h.f8gsjaclk8er>. I agree adding a section direction in the explainer would be useful. I will do it. TLDR: FencedFrame and anonymous iframe are totally different/unrelated. Since <fencedframe> must not learn about its embedder, if you embed inside an <iframe anonymous> a <fencedframe>, it has no effect and the FencedFrame is still subject to COEP. The other way around works the way > About the explainer, the one used in the TAG review is: > https://github.com/camillelamy/explainers/blob/main/anonymous_iframes.md > But now it seems to be integrated into the spec > https://wicg.github.io/anonymous-iframe/ which is not very common. I agree. The first explainer was added inside camillelamy/explainer <https://github.com/camillelamy/explainers> repo. That's not great, because it contains several unrelated explainers. I had to create a new one so that it can be transferred under the WICG: WICG/anonymous-iframe <https://github.com/WICG/anonymous-iframe>. Having said that, we can't go back into the past. > Also > the explainer usually includes the problem, alternatives discussed and > the like, and now they're like separated sections in the spec. Maybe > some reformatting could be useful. > They are all in the same doc today. Are you suggesting splitting it into a separate markdown file? I am not sure what the benefits would be. For those used to github, there are links <https://github.com/WICG/anonymous-iframe#documents> to each section. I guess it'd be also nice to ensure we have proper documentation about > this, "anonymous" attribute is not mentioned at MDN: > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/iframe That would be lovely. I guess a PR against this file <https://github.com/mdn/content/blob/main/files/en-us/web/html/element/iframe/index.md> in Mozilla repository is the proper way to make this happen. I will try. -- 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 blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAAzos5HypUV7mKcgtTVAoine88LqC5qOd0qsWho9MYetYUtRnA%40mail.gmail.com.
