- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 11:53:55 +0000
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com>, WG Webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Kenneth Rohde Christiansen <kenneth.r.christiansen@intel.com>, Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 at 1:21 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com (mailto:marcos@marcosc.com)> wrote: > > I still think that leaving out name and icons from a manifest about > bookmarks is a big mistake. I just made my case here > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2014Feb/0039.html > > Basically I think we need to make the manifest more self sufficient. I > think that we're getting Ruby's postulate the wrong way around by > making the file that describes the bookmark not contain all the data > about the bookmark. Instead the two most important pieces about the > bookmark, name and icons, will live in a completely separate HTML > file, often with no way to find yourself from the manifest to that > separate HTML file. > Given the rationale in [1], we've put name and icons back into the spec. The fallback model is: 1. If name and/or icons in manifest, use those. Ignore the HTML ones. 2. If either name or icon are missing, fallback to HTML. In 2, it's RECOMMENDED devs and implementors choose "application-name" and <link rel="icon"> over proprietary equivalents, of course. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2014Feb/0039.html
Received on Saturday, 15 February 2014 11:54:27 UTC