- From: Matt Giuca <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2020 22:00:44 -0700
- To: w3c/manifest <manifest@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Received on Friday, 3 April 2020 05:00:58 UTC
Yeah, that's true. Did we have any other reasons (@alancutter) to propose the explicit `id` scheme, besides being able to migrate your manifest? I suppose we should consider two separate use cases here: 1. Once-in-awhile developer wanting to migrate their manifest URL. 2. Manifest URL is versioned so it changes every time the manifest changes. Doing an explicit migration is suitable for 1. But I don't think you'd want to do this for 2, otherwise you'd have to make your old manifests 301 to the new one every time. So this would probably preclude being able to version your manifests. Which as @jakearchibald said in 2018, is actually best practice (or would be, if it worked; at present it's best practice for everything _but_ the manifest because of this problem). -- 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-608230363
Received on Friday, 3 April 2020 05:00:58 UTC