Re: [w3c/manifest] Processing the manifest is no longer a function of document URL (#834)

If I understand this right, we will have 3 notions/options of scopebased on invalidations:
 1. The scope in the json
 1. The first implied scope, from the start_url
 1. The second implied scopes, from a start_url that is changed by the document_url

and I believe the proposal is to base the share targets/etc validation on the 2nd of these?

I have a crazy idea here. Looking towards the goal of having the manifest being the source of truth for a web app (where we should be able to install a web app with just a manifest) what if we introduce a new noun into the spec - an 'isolated' or 'isolatable' manifest:

An 'isolated' manifest is a manifest that has a start_url that includes an origin. 'isolated' manifests are applicable to installing/applying to a document_url IFF the document_url is the same origin as the start_url.

This gets rid of the possibility of 3. above, and also doesn't seem to break anything currently (as per mgiuca@'s analysis above). This also starts reenforcing the idea of a manifest being 'all that you need' to install a web app, and starts that definition as something that has a start_url including an origin. It also doesn't invalidate manifest that, say, only have a theme_color, as that is fine and valid. This manifest is not 'isolated', and going towards the goal here, that manifest wouldn't be used to fully describe a webapp to be installed.

-- 
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/834#issuecomment-663677886