- From: Anssi Kostiainen <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 07:51:45 -0700
- To: w3c/manifest <manifest@noreply.github.com>
- Message-ID: <w3c/manifest/issues/326/77867561@github.com>
"related_applications": [ { "vendor": <vendor name, such as "itunes">, "id": <uniquely identifies the app for the vendor, could be any string, UUID, ID, URL> }, { // ... } @kenchris and I think it is probably better to not require the `id` to be an URL that can be navigated to, just an `id` that is understood by the `vendor` is enough. Quickly looking at the state of things, the current vendors use the following formats for `id`: * iTunes `id284882231` * Play `com.foobar.appname` * Windows Store UUID * Firefox OS Market just uses the plain application name, such as `facebook-1` or `bing-maps` * Chrome Web Store `lkbhppfbabandkdmgjmifahoabeodiep` * Amazon App Store for Android `B00QW8TYWO` This seems to be somewhat aligned with @mounirlamouri's thoughts. >From @slightlyoff's proposal, I'm wondering if the order should have a significance? > To accommodate all of these situations, the list is ordered based on developer preference. If and "android" or "iOS" entry occurs before the "web" (or default "web") entry and is appropriate for the UA to offer, an "install banner" might be shown, using the information provided in the manifest to bootstrap the offer process. >https://github.com/slightlyoff/AppInstallImprovements/blob/master/explainer.md#offering-related-applications --- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues/326#issuecomment-77867561
Received on Monday, 9 March 2015 14:52:13 UTC