- From: Marcos Cáceres <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2016 19:05:04 -0800
- To: w3c/manifest <manifest@noreply.github.com>
- Message-ID: <w3c/manifest/pull/507/review/12158129@github.com>
marcoscaceres requested changes on this pull request. > @@ -2033,6 +2038,71 @@ <h3 id="applying"> </p> </section> </section> + + <section> + <h3> + <code>serviceworker</code> member + </h3> + <p> + The <dfn><code>serviceworker</code> member</dfn> describes a + service worker as defined in [[!SERVICE-WORKERS-1]]. + </p> + <p> + The <a><code>serviceworker</code> member</a> represents a service worker + registration. Other service worker registrations can be done, for instance Link to registration definition in SW > + If they have different script URLs, last one wins. + </p> + <p> + The <dfn>steps for processing the <code>serviceworker</code> + member</dfn> are given by the following algorithm. The algorithm + takes a <a>manifest</a> <var>manifest</var> and <a>serviceworker object</a> + <var>serviceworker</var> as an argument. This algorithm returns a + serviceworker object <var>serviceworker</var>, which can be <code>undefined</code>. + </p> + <ol> + <li>Let <var>src</var> be the result of running the <a>steps + for processing the <code>src</code> member of a service worker</a> + with <var>serviceworker</var> and <var>manifest URL</var>. + </li> + <li>If <var>src</var> is <code>undefined</code>, or if the result of + running <a href="https://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/powerfulfeatures/#is-origin-trustworthy">Is origin potentially trustworthy</a> Nit: throw in this URL in the dependencies section at the bottom of the document. > + If they have different script URLs, last one wins. + </p> + <p> + The <dfn>steps for processing the <code>serviceworker</code> + member</dfn> are given by the following algorithm. The algorithm + takes a <a>manifest</a> <var>manifest</var> and <a>serviceworker object</a> + <var>serviceworker</var> as an argument. This algorithm returns a + serviceworker object <var>serviceworker</var>, which can be <code>undefined</code>. + </p> + <ol> + <li>Let <var>src</var> be the result of running the <a>steps + for processing the <code>src</code> member of a service worker</a> + with <var>serviceworker</var> and <var>manifest URL</var>. + </li> + <li>If <var>src</var> is <code>undefined</code>, or if the result of + running <a href="https://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/powerfulfeatures/#is-origin-trustworthy">Is origin potentially trustworthy</a> Won't the service worker registration attempt do this for us? > + registration. Other service worker registrations can be done, for instance + by a script; if these have different scopes they will be considered separate + registrations. If they have the same scope and script URL, they coalesce. + If they have different script URLs, last one wins. + </p> + <p> + The <dfn>steps for processing the <code>serviceworker</code> + member</dfn> are given by the following algorithm. The algorithm + takes a <a>manifest</a> <var>manifest</var> and <a>serviceworker object</a> + <var>serviceworker</var> as an argument. This algorithm returns a + serviceworker object <var>serviceworker</var>, which can be <code>undefined</code>. + </p> + <ol> + <li>Let <var>src</var> be the result of running the <a>steps + for processing the <code>src</code> member of a service worker</a> + with <var>serviceworker</var> and <var>manifest URL</var>. Below, you are using `let service worker be` thus trashing this one? I don't think we need to send in a service worker here. Just process the members first, then "attempt to register the service worker" > + registration. Other service worker registrations can be done, for instance + by a script; if these have different scopes they will be considered separate + registrations. If they have the same scope and script URL, they coalesce. + If they have different script URLs, last one wins. + </p> + <p> + The <dfn>steps for processing the <code>serviceworker</code> + member</dfn> are given by the following algorithm. The algorithm + takes a <a>manifest</a> <var>manifest</var> and <a>serviceworker object</a> + <var>serviceworker</var> as an argument. This algorithm returns a + serviceworker object <var>serviceworker</var>, which can be <code>undefined</code>. + </p> + <ol> + <li>Let <var>src</var> be the result of running the <a>steps + for processing the <code>src</code> member of a service worker</a> + with <var>serviceworker</var> and <var>manifest URL</var>. Sorry, this comment is in the wrong place! > + </h3> + <p> + The <dfn><code>serviceworker</code> member</dfn> describes a + service worker as defined in [[!SERVICE-WORKERS-1]]. + </p> + <p> + The <a><code>serviceworker</code> member</a> represents a service worker + registration. Other service worker registrations can be done, for instance + by a script; if these have different scopes they will be considered separate + registrations. If they have the same scope and script URL, they coalesce. + If they have different script URLs, last one wins. + </p> + <p> + The <dfn>steps for processing the <code>serviceworker</code> + member</dfn> are given by the following algorithm. The algorithm + takes a <a>manifest</a> <var>manifest</var> and <a>serviceworker object</a> Below, you are using `let service worker be...` thus trashing this one? I don't think we need to send in a service worker here. Just process the members first, then "attempt to register the service worker" > + <p> + The <dfn>steps for processing the <code>serviceworker</code> + member</dfn> are given by the following algorithm. The algorithm + takes a <a>manifest</a> <var>manifest</var> and <a>serviceworker object</a> + <var>serviceworker</var> as an argument. This algorithm returns a + serviceworker object <var>serviceworker</var>, which can be <code>undefined</code>. + </p> + <ol> + <li>Let <var>src</var> be the result of running the <a>steps + for processing the <code>src</code> member of a service worker</a> + with <var>serviceworker</var> and <var>manifest URL</var>. + </li> + <li>If <var>src</var> is <code>undefined</code>, or if the result of + running <a href="https://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/powerfulfeatures/#is-origin-trustworthy">Is origin potentially trustworthy</a> + with the origin of <var>src</var> is <code>Not Trusted</code>, return + <code>undefined</code>. screwing up the security aspects of the registration is a pretty big error... so we should maybe pass this through and just allow service worker registration to fail (and kill the whole object then) > + member</dfn> are given by the following algorithm. The algorithm + takes a <a>manifest</a> <var>manifest</var> and <a>serviceworker object</a> + <var>serviceworker</var> as an argument. This algorithm returns a + serviceworker object <var>serviceworker</var>, which can be <code>undefined</code>. + </p> + <ol> + <li>Let <var>src</var> be the result of running the <a>steps + for processing the <code>src</code> member of a service worker</a> + with <var>serviceworker</var> and <var>manifest URL</var>. + </li> + <li>If <var>src</var> is <code>undefined</code>, or if the result of + running <a href="https://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/powerfulfeatures/#is-origin-trustworthy">Is origin potentially trustworthy</a> + with the origin of <var>src</var> is <code>Not Trusted</code>, return + <code>undefined</code>. + </li> + <li>Otherwise, let <var>serviceworker</var> be an object with nit: ` let <var>serviceworker</var> ` might confuse people into thinking this the actual service worker... maybe "Let `registration properties` be..." > + </li> + <li>Let <var>type</var> be the result of running the <a>steps + for processing the <code>scope</code> member of a service worker</a> + passing <var>serviceworker</var>. + </li> + <li>If <var>scope</var> is not <code>undefined</code>, + set<var>serviceworker</var>'s <code>scope</code> + property to be <var>scope</var>. + </li> + <li>Return <var>serviceworker</var>. + </li> + </ol> + <div class="example"> + In the following example, the web application is listing + a service worker for the <code>/foo</code> scope: +<pre class=""> nit: class=example? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/w3c/manifest/pull/507#pullrequestreview-12158129
Received on Friday, 9 December 2016 03:05:39 UTC