`window.anonymous` usage in the wild

[miketaylr]

Have y'all done any analysis of how common window.anonymous is on the web, maybe via HTTP Archive?

A quick search finds https://github.com/firebase/firebase-js-sdk/search?q=window.anonymous&type=code, which might create some confusing test errors down the road. Not sure that's a deal-breaker, but just flagging for awareness.

[ArthurSonzogni]

Thanks!

Initially, this was document.anonymous, but we realized during the implementation that this was more a property of the window instead of its documents. See: https://github.com/camillelamy/explainers/issues/21

We can still expose document.anonymous and say it returns the document`s responsible window (if any) anonymous attribute.

I will run an HTTP archive query and put the result here once it is known. Thanks again for raising this potential issue!

[ArthurSonzogni]

Here is the public HTTP archive analysis: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MKGUfGzEEKpll88QspKiwDRWdkOMVh3OOXSrxGWe1Y4/edit# Summary:

• 33 origins are serving a script containing window.anonymous toward 223 origins. ~80% of the subresources are coming from https://player.gotolstoy.com/.
• 1 origin is serving itself a script containing document.anonymous.

[ArthurSonzogni]

We are going to update to a more uncommon name: window.isAnonymousFramed.

[miketaylr]

Sounds good, thanks!

[ArthurSonzogni]

(keeping this open, up until it gets fixed in the spec and the implementation)

[mikewest]

Grammar nit: isAnonymouslyFramed sounds better to me. :)

[ArthurSonzogni]

Resolved in both Chrome and the specification thanks to @iVanlIsh