Re: [w3c/manifest] Moves BeforeInstallPrompt and related text to a non-normative annex. (#843)

> I don't see how it could be confusing when it clearly explains what it's doing in that section.

Sorry, I meant more generally in the community (not us standards folks). I'm thinking of random developers seeing BIP in the spec and wondering why it's not supported in multiple engines (not browsers).   

> It would be more confusing if developers went looking for the text specifying this feature which has been in multiple browsers for years and can't find it anywhere.

Yeah, this is were it gets murky and get circle back to the "but it's all just Blink, not independent implementations!"😭 Reality vs standards. Let's refrain from discussing that again: thus I'd rather we reach consensus on this based on the two proposals. 

I'm also concerned about setting a precedence for this at the W3C. The ECMAScript annex hints at the problems (i.e., those things are only available on under certain conditions, for legacy reasons, on particular engines, etc.). 

@dominickng wrote:
> Additionally, we're trying to ensure that implementors who choose to add a developer-triggered prompting mechanism have strong guidance based what was previously in the spec (and shipped in several browsers).

This implies that there would be multiple independent implementations for the purpose of standardization, which is was not the case: that's what brought us to the original pull request to remove BIP.

@mgiuca wrote:
> I hear you. We don't want random proprietary APIs living inside of standards documents as a general rule. This case is a bit different, though, because it has been exposed through multiple browsers (even if their implementation is not independent) for many years while being in the standard. It's more of a "soft touch" to downgrade it from being in the standard to being in a non-normative annex, than removing it entirely.

Yes, that's why I'm also open to leaving it if others feel we should leave it in as per this PR. 

So to be clear: I'm a "no" on having this in the spec, but if other folks feel it's ok I won't definitely won't object to having it in there. 

@rniwa, @aarongustafson, what say you? Leave it or ditch it? 

-- 
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/pull/843#issuecomment-577499653