- From: Ben Francis <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 13:53:12 -0700
- To: w3c/manifest <manifest@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
- Message-ID: <w3c/manifest/issues/586/674267717@github.com>
@dmurph wrote: > The algorithm that we use is to basically visit any manifest links we see and then update if the identifier matches (for chrome desktop this is start_url). This code path used for install detection as well (and for setting theme color, etc, manifests are always supposed to be visited) , so it's not too much of added complexity for us to check all manifests we see because we do that anyways. Not sure what android does. Ah I see. Yes unfortunately I don't think `start_url` makes the best identifier because it's the most likely to change. I tried using `scope` (+ origin) in the past for Firefox OS, which is a bit better but still has problems. I'm not sure what Fenix currently does? Do manifests on Android currently ever get updated once they are installed? I currently have a slightly different use case where I'd ideally like to be able to install a single web app to a kiosk runtime remotely by its manifest URL, without it being installed from browser chrome on the device itself. I'm hoping that https://github.com/w3c/manifest/pull/834 might make that possible by removing the dependency on a document URL. In this case manifest link relations may never actually be followed, which makes the approach you describe above for updates a bit tricky. I recognise this is not the core intended use case for a manifest, but it might also be relevant to installing a web app from an app store. > Would you be OK with the conclusion here to use 'manifest_url' as the unique identifier for a web app? Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. -- 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-674267717
Received on Friday, 14 August 2020 20:53:24 UTC