Re: [w3c/manifest] Clarify behaviour of a page linking to a manifest that is not within scope of that manifest (#784)

Ah, I think in that case we wouldn't invalidate the manifest, because it's _same origin_ as the document.

There are two cases.

1. Document is out of scope, but same origin.

Document is `https://example.com/about` and manifest is:

```json
{
   "start_url": "https://example.com/pwa/",
   "scope": "https://example.com/pwa/"
}
```

Answer: Allow the document to install this fully-valid manifest. The `start_url` and `scope` are unmodified. They just happen not to include the document. (This is case 2 in the above taxonomy: where a non-PWA version of a site wants to install its PWA version on the same origin.) I think we should allow this.

2. Document is on a different origin to the manifest scope.

Document is `example.com/about` and manifest is:

```json
{
   "start_url": "https://mypwa.com/pwa/",
   "scope": "https://mypwa.com/pwa/"
}
```

Answer: Invalidate the manifest. This document is not allowed to refer to a manifest whose scope is on a different origin. If the user agent allows the document to be installed, it would be treated as if it had no 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/784#issuecomment-653374403