- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 17:26:20 +0100
- To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- CC: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On 04/02/2014 12:12 , Marcos Caceres wrote: > Yeah, of course there it sounds silly. But there are already multiple > ways to provide the application's name (e.g., > "apple-mobile-web-app-title") - the manifest adds yet another. > (...) > Maybe, but I don't see how else to prollyfill this - particularly for > icons (see [1], icons is crazy proprietary town!)? I was actually > going to build the above to show how the manifest can be used to > target any browser that supports "add to home screen" (by just > converting the manifest members into their proprietary > equivalents)... I thought it was a good idea and not very contrived > :( Maybe I'm being thick but taking a static resource and using it to add static information to another static resource doesn't strike me as a great use for a polyfill! You're sending a scripts that detects if manifests are supported, if not downloads the manifest, parses it, uses that information to add meta... hasn't the user left your site by then? What happens if it immediately strikes me as wonderful and I immediately bookmark it before your script has run? What happens if I'm an old school crawler? It really looks to me like you want a build step, or failing that server-side generation. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2014 16:26:31 UTC