Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] TAG review for web app `scope_extensions` (Issue #875)

Thanks @dmurph. That's representative of what we discussed in that meeting. It is good solution that does not require a request header and I agree with the tiered approach for `origin` vs. `site` extension, as well as the reasoning bullet points.

`App-Id` is not necessary if the response header returns all manifest IDs that the origin recognizes.
For completeness, I want to point out that not implementing an `App-Id` request header will not allow the server to control filtering differently for different origins. The filtering information (paths, URLPattern, etc.) will be in the association file and the same information will be applied to all origin matching a `site` extension. 
  
Since 
* Per origin filtering when using a `site` extension is not a requirement for the known use cases, and
* Nothing prevents `App-Id` from being specified in the future if the need arises
* It would be easier for site operators to configure
only requiring a response header with manifest IDs for `site` extension case is my preference. 
---
Other issues
* We can find a shorter name for the header field (`Extends-Apps`?)
* Re. syntax - will replacement instead of extension not cause compatibility problems? 


-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/875#issuecomment-2329791901
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/875/2329791901@github.com>