Re: [w3c/manifest] Add a unique identifier for a PWA (#586)

I appreciate the sentiment that Cool URIs don't change (especially since that page seems to have existed for 22 years at the same URL). But the reality is, developers do want to change their URLs, including the manifest, not just for versioning but to keep their site organised.

The problem as I see it is that we've never _specified_ what makes a unique identifier for an app. So implementations can use the manifest URL, but that's essentially creating a de facto standard that developers have to divine based on the (conflicting) implementations. This isn't just some user-agent-specific logic, it actually affects how developers are allowed to run their sites (i.e., am I allowed to change my manifest URL? The spec doesn't say, I just have to try it and see if it breaks browsers.) So whatever the answer is, it should be specified and consistent across browsers.

I do like the idea of manifest URL being the key, for the reasons you said 1 and 2 (you can just point a store listing or admin install config at a manifest URL and it tells you everything you need to index and install the app).

But it has the significant drawback that developers can never change their manifest URL once the site is launched. We can possibly solve around that by adding an explicit ability to migrate users to a new manifest URL (which could be as simple as stating that a HTTP 301 redirect on the manifest URL says to update to the new location). But it would be simpler if we didn't tie the key to the manifest URL in the first place.

> 3: No ambiguity over whether two applications within the same origin/sharing the same start_url/sharing the same scope/claiming the same internal ID are the same app or different apps

That is true of any standardized solution. The ambiguity comes from the current reality of it not being specified.

-- 
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/586#issuecomment-608199249