Re: [w3c/manifest] Add id member to manifest (#988)

@mgiuca commented on this pull request.



> @@ -808,6 +811,90 @@ <h3>
           </p>
         </section>
       </section>
+      <section>
+        <h3>
+          `id` member
+        </h3>
+        <p>
+          The [=manifest's=] <code><dfn data-export="" data-dfn-for=
+          "manifest" id="identity">id</dfn></code> member is a <a>string</a> that

I'm not very familiar with the MiniApps work. Are we intentionally aligning with them / is there some assumed compatibility between the two standards? Do we try to align opportunistically (i.e. if there's something that "feels the same" we try to align but we don't go out of our way to make it compatible)?

I think we could align with them on the name, but also we have a somewhat different semantics for our ID.

Ignoring MiniApps, I would have a slight preference for `id` over `app_id`, echoing what @philloooo said. It's called the "Web App Manifest", so "app" is implied, and we could similarly argue that it should be called `app_scope`, `app_name`, etc. So my vote is for `id`.

-- 
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/988#discussion_r692601074