Re: [manifest] The use of the `.manifest` file extension may be problematic / confusing ? (#346)

> Should we just call it .webmanifest? I think anything we come up with is going to be terrible 

@marcoscaceres Having a unique file extension would make things very easy in terms of server configs, so :+1: for that.

>  (and not send the recommended mime type). 

It's not only about _"sending the recommended mime type"_. Some servers (e.g.: Apache) rely on the media type for different settings (e.g: [ExpiresByType](http://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/mod/mod_expires.html#expiresbytype)), and not having a unique file extension sometimes makes the mapping to a media type [not so straightforward](https://github.com/h5bp/server-configs-apache/blob/9336f201aa1664ac0c9b76442ba354c3a38bcbf6/dist/.htaccess#L186-L217).

>   and 99% of people will just use .json

The HTML5 Boilerplate project is [looking into adding a starter web application manifest file](https://github.com/h5bp/html5-boilerplate/pull/1629), and some of the H5BP server configs had some default configs for this [for quite some time](https://github.com/h5bp/server-configs-apache/issues/29), so if something changes regarding the file extension, we'll try to help even more (e.g.: recently we removed the `.manifest` → `text/cache-manifest` mapping from all our server configs: [1](https://github.com/h5bp/server-configs-apache/commit/c805353c4142c792267945687309259fc15b2106), [2](https://github.com/h5bp/server-configs-nginx/commit/d7e0e1bf46c89e387b201d849711ff8564e9652e), [3](https://github.com/h5bp/server-configs-gae/commit/584759ec0e1fe166cc96b36e6ff00c91769712e0), [4](https://github.com/h5bp/server-configs-lighttpd/commit/27ff0ab0b82aeb63d954294944af956c9ad5d4a6)).


---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues/346#issuecomment-89043694