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

alex-voodoo left a comment (w3c/manifest#1168)

I think we are mixing perspectives and concepts here.

"Installation without a manifest" may make total sense for a user, and the Solitaire game is a good example. The user may think: "I want to run this as if it would be something standalone".

However, the web application manifest expresses the webmaster's intent: "I allow this to work as something standalone", and although the result looks similar to the former case (it works as something standalone), the user and the webmaster are two distinct parties, and their perspectives are different. The manifest allows consistent experience across all documents in the scope of the application, it complements the webmaster's intent, and allows them to define _what exactly_ belongs to that standalone thing, and how exactly the _whole_ standalone thing should look like.

If there is no explicit manifest, the user agent might use some "default configuration" to create a virtual web application, but to me it seems that such "installation without a manifest" could not mean much more than "just open this in a standalone window", and that could be done by extending the bookmarks UI of a user agent. Yes, it would look similar to real web apps that have manifests, but that would be just visual similarity.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues/1168#issuecomment-6191034737
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3c/manifest/issues/1168/6191034737@github.com>