Re: [w3c/manifest] Clarify ServiceWorkerRegistrationObject’s purpose (#800)

> The current mechanism for registering a SW isn't really tying it to the app at all, it just happens to be two technologies that work together. So if the SW is removed due to storage pressure, the app breaks, and there isn't really any mechanism saying "no wait, this SW is more important to me because it's tied to an app".

That makes total sense.

> I don't think this was ever implemented in any browser, but I'm in favour of a renewed push to implement, rather than removing this. Since it hasn't been implemented, we could change it if necessary.

I’m not averse to that as long as we document the purpose of the member (and how it should be considered by a UA) better within the spec.

> Maybe if we believe that, this is a good place to start: remove scope from ServiceWorkerRegistrationObject, and always use the manifest scope, so that we enforce the rule that a service worker formally linked to an app manifest has the same scope as that app.

+1 to that.

On the shared SW issue, my opposition was more to having one app within another (e..g., one with a scope of `/` and another with a scope of `/inner-app`) wherein URL-based disambiguation from within the SW might make updating the corresponding app icon more difficult.

-- 
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/800#issuecomment-533407978