Re: [w3c/manifest] The new definition of "installable web application" is inconsistent with the normative text of the specification (Issue #1168)

dmurph left a comment (w3c/manifest#1168)

How might we square that with still wanting to specify how a given page without a manifest would be installed if the user agent wants to offer that? e.g. We want to specify what the start_url would be, what the scope is, what the id is, etc. We could make the manifest url optional maybe, or perhaps we have a default one? (insert pipe dream of "origin.com/.well-known/manifest.webmanifest") - Although then if one DID exist there, then that would be confusing. But if we wanted that to be the naturally discoverable one for any origin, that might be cool?

Setting nerd-sniping aside, definitely I would still want a specification that could work on a page that doesn't have a manifest url in it.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues/1168#issuecomment-6155760921
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3c/manifest/issues/1168/6155760921@github.com>