Re: [w3c/manifest] Editorial: Refine the definition of an installable web application (PR #1164)

marcoscaceres left a comment (w3c/manifest#1164)

@benfrancis, for example, if you go to https://example.com in Safari on Desktop, and you "Add to Dock", it creates an installed web application. 

So, you are not wrong that the technical aspects are not stitched up together at well as they could be, but that above shows the intent of the text in that *any* website, regardless of an explicit inclusion of a web manifest, can be an installed web application. That is precisely what the original intent was for that text. 

The bit that might be missing its that all websites get assigned a processed manifest, even if the manifest is nonexistent.

So, the actual bug is in the HTML spec section on the manifest link relationship type (or perhaps in our spec)... that somewhere it needs to say that if there is not link relationship, just assume a null manifest and apply the default (with the browser being allowed to override any defaults it chooses, the way that Safari does)

Would that make more sense?  




-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/manifest/pull/1164#issuecomment-2740136818
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3c/manifest/pull/1164/c2740136818@github.com>