Re: [w3c/manifest] Clarify rule of navigating away from the navigation scope (#646)

Update: It seems that Chrome for Android recently landed changes [1] to effectively go from (b2) to (b1) in the above taxonomy. That is, out-of-scope navigations currently (in Chrome 66) open a new navigation context, but in a future version, they will navigate within the same navigation context.

This is in violation of the current spec text:

*"The user agent MUST navigate the application context as per [HTML]'s navigate algorithm with exceptions enabled. If the URL of the resource being loaded in the navigation is not within scope of the navigation scope of the application context's manifest, then the user agent MUST behave as if the application context is not allowed to navigate. This provides the ability for the user agent to perform the navigation in a different browsing context, or in a different user agent entirely."*

The reason for the change is that sites were broken when installed because they expect normal navigation behaviour off site (particularly for authentication flows where they go to a different origin for auth, and expect to redirect back). We've seen similar reports on Chrome OS and Safari [2] where the current spec text is followed.

Coming back to my last comment from March:

> So there are a few noticeable differences, and therefore, I think it's prudent to continue to disallow (b1). If a user agent wants to implement (b1) behaviour for out-of-scope navigations, we can discuss allowing this at a later time.

I think maybe we want to change to (b1) behaviour. We should be opinionated about this, as opposed to allowing either. So the proposal would be to allow navigations outside of the scope, but require (or recommend, as strongly as possible from within spec-land) that UI is shown while out-of-scope to indicate that you are no longer within the app. Basically, what we had before for "unbounded scope", when you are off-origin.

[1] https://crrev.com/c/1050386 (Chrome 67) and https://crrev.com/c/1008735 (Chrome 68)
[2] https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues/550#issuecomment-390246011

-- 
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/646#issuecomment-390869591