Re: [w3c/manifest] Add a unique identifier for a PWA (#586)

> @ralphch0 wrote:
> One comment I had was regarding the default ID when the "id" field is missing:
> 
> Feels to me like if we were building this from scratch, we would likely go with scope? It's the same as service workers, and less likely to change. Sounds like the main reason start_url is preferred is because we would only be changing expectations for one set of devs (Android), but I wonder if long term scope will make more sense for future developers. Is start_url even that intuitive/expected by Desktop developers today?

start_url is how we currently allow updating, so I'm sure there is a lot of infrastructure that devs have in place that assume this case. But I don't have any concrete data here yet. @benfrancis noted that there is a request for having multiple scopes, which would make this probably a bad option if people need that.

> @ralphch0 wrote:
> I assume here that regardless of what we choose, already installed apps will be migrated to the new ID scheme? (i.e. on the first chrome version that has the new code, the ID'ing will be migrated to the new scheme, and updates to the app will continue working by matching using the new ID scheme). IOW, there should be no technical diff (since I assume almost all apps out there don't use a dynamically changing scope), just a change in developers mental model that they may need to be aware of.

As much as possible, yes. Some solutions would not support existing installed apps, and IDK what we would do in those cases. I think you're right - developers on any platform where the behavior is changing would have to have a change in mental model, yes.



-- 
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-780778589