should blob URL clients have their controlled updated if their parent's controller is changed?

Currently we inherit the service worker controller from the parent client for blob URL windows and workers. We don't, however, do anything to handle the case where the parent's controller is changed after the blob URL is created. This can happen in only two ways right now:

1. A service worker calls skipWaiting() and replaces an existing active worker.
2. A service worker calls clients.claim().

Currently the spec will update the controller on a blob URL client in case (1). The spec updates does "For each service worker client client who is using registration:" which should include blob URL clients.

For claim, however, it attempts to match the service worker's scope against the client's creation URL. This will never match for blob: URL clients.

Should we consider propagating a controller change from a parent to the blob URL child client?

Start by reviewing the Service Worker specification's controller-update behavior, including the existing handling for blob URL clients and the clients.claim() scope-matching steps. Determine whether parent-to-child propagation is required, then document the resolved algorithm change and its expected behavior for the two cases described.