This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 27916 - Reconsider the load event with window.open("", ...)
Summary: Reconsider the load event with window.open("", ...)
Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME
Alias: None
Product: WHATWG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: HTML (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Other other
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: Unsorted
Assignee: Ian 'Hixie' Hickson
QA Contact: contributor
URL: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#apis-fo...
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2015-01-28 11:22 UTC by contributor
Modified: 2015-09-01 08:50 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments

Description contributor 2015-01-28 11:22:55 UTC 
Specification: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/browsers.html
Multipage: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/#apis-for-creating-and-navigating-browsing-contexts-by-name
Complete: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#apis-for-creating-and-navigating-browsing-contexts-by-name
Referrer: 

Comment:
Reconsider the load event with window.open("", ...)

Posted from: 91.182.76.126 by ms2ger@gmail.com
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:34.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/34.0
Comment 1 Ms2ger 2015-01-28 11:26:03 UTC 
http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?saved=3386

<!DOCTYPE html>
...<script>
var win = window.open('', '', '');
win.onload = function(e) { w(e) };
w(win);
</script>

does not appear to log a load event in either Firefox or Chrome.

However, Firefox appears to dispatch a load event (async, as specced) if you use 'about:blank' rather than ''. Chrome doesn't in that case.
Comment 2 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2015-01-29 23:06:45 UTC 
I think this was an intentional rationalisation, IIRC. Are there pages that depend on not sending the load event?
Comment 3 Simon Pieters 2015-01-30 08:49:53 UTC 
This was discovered as part of reviewing a test case. Web compat situation unknown.
Comment 4 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2015-03-04 18:59:53 UTC 
Well, I've reconsidered it, and it seems reasonable to me... Unless there's a compat need, I think we should stick with it...