Re: [w3ctag/spec-reviews] Progressive Web Apps (#123)

I see this on the agenda for this week.  Maybe we can progress this by sorting out what is architecture and what is not, and whether PWAs have anything to say about the bits that are.

* **"Progressiveness"**: is this a marketing buzzword that means whatever you want it to mean, or should it have a technical definition?  If the latter, then I think it would be helpful for us to offer one, and determine how or whether PWAs fit that definition.  If the former, then this is not a technical concern.

* **Canonical content**: The very purpose of the web platform is to offer interop between proprietary systems.  Therefore is the use of web platform to deliver platform specific experience (the likes of `m.`) an architectural concern?  This may be an interesting question to answer but I suspect Alex will argue that PWAs do no such thing, and the focus on mobile is simply an expression of the urgency of the need for the web to do better on that platform. I would accept that with some hope amid positive signs of change on this front.

* **Containment**: The ability to display sites in a standalone/fullscreen manner is certainly architecture, and is part of a spec that has already got wide support.  The additional element PWAs bring is to say that all sites should be PWAs and all PWAs should be standalone/fullscreen.  That containment arguably does not suit all use cases and is why the spec offered the developer a range of options in the first place.

So, if you accept my logic above, then this issue boils down to:

1. If `progressive` is a technical term, then what does it mean?
2. Does the development of the Lighthouse testing tool and the rules it contains constitute a narrowing of the manifest specification?

It's worth reflecting on the fact that while specs might be canonical, one powerful vendor's interpretation of 'the good parts' can be orders of magnitude more powerful as an influence on developer behaviour.

---
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/spec-reviews/issues/123#issuecomment-230382180