Re: [w3c/manifest] Properties not mentioned in the Spec - Safe to use? (#711)

> As you can see there are many properties not mentioned in the Spec's. Some questions jump into my mind to ask:

oh, I think that manifest file is for browser extensions (WebExtensions), not for "web manifest"... it just happens to be called the same thing. 

I added a warning at the top of that page. 

> 1.a) Can Browsers Still Read the Data in the Manifest File if the Property is not Supported (yet).

Yes - see below. 

> 1.b) Would w3c add something to the spec to stop that, or block it or something else related in that respect.

No, because browsers just ignore things they don't understand (by design) - similar to how parsing CSS works. 

> Will these Properties be added to the Spec at a later date - I do understand its still in Draft. However, there are so many good Properties out there that would seem to have some good benefit to be added.

No - that's a different format ... just share the file name and some of the same property names.

>  Things like author, description, developer etc. Would be nice to move humans.txt into the manifest file.

We've considered this in the past, but as `humans.txt` already exists, we decided not to duplicate it. 

As a general rule, we only add manifest properties if they have some direct effect on the OS (e.g., "`icon` sets the icon for the app, `name` sets the name of the app"), or browser (e.g., "`orientation` changes the orientation"). Things like `author`, `description` and other metadata don't seem to have any demonstrable utility in either the browser or the OS. 

-- 
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/issues/711#issuecomment-416105247