- From: Daniel Murphy <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2020 13:53:52 -0700
- To: w3c/manifest <manifest@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2020 20:54:05 UTC
I do think that there is one big downside for using manifest_url as the ID - this means that a manifest wouldn't be inherently 'packaged' by itself. Like - you couldn't install an app just from a manifest without that manifest url (or the id being specified). If everyone specifies an ID, this I guess isn't that big of a deal - but it is difficult to fake for the 'webapp'ing that current browsers do. Right now, you can create a fake manifest for a site and just set the start_url to the url that is being shown, and bam, webapp. But if manifest_url becomes the unique ID, and systems are designed around that, then that becomes more complicated. for the questions above: 1. I'm thinking updates would happen when the browser encountered a manifest, where the ID of the manifest matches the id of an existing manifest of that origin. The traditional way browser encounter the manifest is to see it when a page is loaded - but I could imagine that it could be provided another way. 2. then they are the same webapp. I think Chrome's behavior is to apply the last-seen manifest as the updated manifest. -- 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-669502545
Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2020 20:54:05 UTC