On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, Charlie Reis wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbar...@mit.edu> wrote: On 6/19/12 1:56 PM, Charlie Reis wrote: That's from the "[if] the user agent determines that the two browsing contexts are related enough that it is ok if they reach each other" part, which is quite vague.This is, imo, the part that says unrelated browsing contexts should not be able to reach each other by name. It's only vague because hixie wanted all current implementations to be conforming, I think. Which I believe is a mistake. Then the wording should be changed. However, that belongs in a different proposal than this one.
The way the process here works is that Hixie reads these emails agrees that the change is a good idea (hopefully; in this case it seems likely since we seem to have three implementors in agreement) and it happens. There isn't any need for seperate proposals.
Of course it is also possible to file a bug if you want to track this specific point. (I sort of thought I had already filed a bug here but I can't find it now so maybe I imagined it).
(aside: your mail client seems to be mangling quotes in plaintext mail. This makes your replies very hard to follow).
