- From: Marcos Cáceres <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2024 15:45:15 -0700
- To: w3c/manifest <manifest@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
- Message-ID: <w3c/manifest/pull/1122/review/2103326095@github.com>
@marcoscaceres commented on this pull request.
> already-installed application, it SHOULD be used as a signal that
this manifest is a replacement for the already-installed
application's manifest, and not a distinct application, even if it is
served from a different URL than the one seen previously.
</p>
+ <p class="note" title="Excluding fragments is best practice">
+ Since the [=process the id member|processing algorithm=] removes the
+ [=URL/fragment=] from the <code>[=manifest/id=]</code> member, it is
+ not strictly necessary to [=URL/equals/exclude fragments=] when
+ checking for a matching application. However, since old versions of
+ this spec (and, possibly, old user agents) did not remove the
+ [=URL/fragment=] from the [=URL=] at parse time, and relied only on
+ [=URL/equals/exclude fragments|excluding fragments=] during
+ comparisons, historical app data could contain [=URL/fragments=] in
+ the <code>[=manifest/id=]</code>. Therefore, it is best practice for
+ user agents to [=URL/equals/exclude fragments=] even when comparing
+ two [=URLs=] that ought not to have fragments.
+ </p>
```suggestion
</aside>
```
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/manifest/pull/1122#pullrequestreview-2103326095
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: <w3c/manifest/pull/1122/review/2103326095@github.com>
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2024 22:45:19 UTC