Link to the HTML spec's "has focus steps".

[mfalken]

This clarifies what "currently focused" means.

---

Preview | Diff

[mfalken]

@domenic @garykac can you review this? More context at WICG/nav-speculation#55

[domenic]

Documents don't have focus. Specific elements inside them, or focusable areas, have focus.

Is this supposed to be about the browsing context having system focus?

[domenic]

LGTM, although ideally this would be in the actual algorithms instead of a magic patch at a distance from the privacy section of the spec. (That's a preexisting problem though, and not really in scope for you to fix...)

[mfalken]

Thanks. I believe the original intent of the text is about system focus. I'm not sure about one thing. Document.hasFocus() exists and uses https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/interaction.html#has-focus-steps which looked convenient as it checks for system focus in the first step. I'm not sure if the other steps are needed. I just changed it to use system focus directly. Do you know what is going on here?

[domenic]

The other steps handle iframe nesting cases. If you call document.hasFocus() inside an iframe, then this is true if:

• The iframe itself has focus within its parent (times N if it's multiply nested)
• The top-level BC has system focus

In non-iframe cases, target's BC = target's BC's TLBC, so candidate = target so the loop quits immediately.

[mfalken]

I see. I wonder if the Clipboard spec also wants to disallow the API in iframes that don't have focus. In that case, would returning to "has focus steps" be better?

[domenic]

Yes, that's a good point. Although you could make an argument for either behavior, probably the clipboard API spec authors intended the document.hasFocus() behavior.

I apologize for not reading your original PR closer. I think I assumed "has focus steps" was a link to https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#focused, but it's document-specific. So we should probably revert to your original.

[mfalken]

No worries, I returned to "has focus steps" then. @garykac does this look good to you?

[mfalken]

No worries, I returned to "has focus steps" then. @garykac does this look good to you?

Sorry somehow I didn't realize @domenic has write access. I was assuming only the editors do. If you think it's OK I'm happy if you merge it. For the build error, I also have sent #147.

[domenic]

Oh weird, I have write access, strange... I'd love it if we could get an editor to sign off before I touch anything though :).

[garykac]

Adding links like this is great because it will make the (eventual) conversion to a more algorithmic spec easier. Thanks!