The entire use case of <portal> could be achieved by just adding the "activate()" API to iframe. That would not require respecifying most of the iframe API, and wouldn't introduce an entirely new attack surface.
-
-
There's a section in the explainer (https://github.com/WICG/portals/blob/master/explainer.md#why-do-we-need-a-new-html-tag-why-not-use-iframe …) which describes the rationale behind this choice, a discussion in the TAG review on the topic (https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/331 …), but no issue against the repo. Whoever's unhappy with the explainer should probably file one.
-
(And I didn't mean the suggestion to file a bug to sound dismissive. My point was that it would be great to have a bug filed by someone who can clearly articulate concerns with the current proposal.)
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
It's still on our radar. The team has been rather busy with IO as you can imagine. But crispier input would definitely help, so please do file a specific issue with some examples if possible.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
& Web Standards TL; Blink API OWNER
Named PWAs w/
DMs open. Tweets my own; press@google.com for official comms.