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

> I just want to highlight that in service-worker-land there is nothing like start_url, etc, to use as an id. So falling back to scope as the default id is mainly because scope is the identifier today (since there is nothing else unique to use). Since the fallback is for compatibility, it probably makes sense to fallback to whatever is currently being used as the id. In this case it sounds like at least two browsers use start_url for that (if I have followed correctly).

Just a quick note here: I think it's definitely an advantage to try to reduce pain by making the fallback work for compatibility. But if feels scope is likely to achieve this also to a large extent, since it's likely the most stable field (maybe we can get numbers here?). The only thing that's meaningfully changing is the mental model for desktop devs (it's unclear if expectations are even well formed for most devs). 

If we can make the id required at some point, as @dmurph suggested, then the non-intuitive fallback is limited to the short term. Is this likely though? Would we need to build some sort of allowlist of existing sites to exclude from the requirement, or have a migration period after which we will start breaking new installations?

If this fallback is likely stay forever, and we think that there are a lot more PWAs to build in the future than we have today, then it might make sense to pick a fallback that makes sense in the future.

That said, this is a slight preference from a design point of view and consistency with service workers. It won't meaningfully affect our own apps, if it's decided to go ahead with the current proposal for fallback.

-- 
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-790543442