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

benfrancis left a comment (w3c/manifest#1168)

@tomayac wrote:
> I think Safari is best in class here by [letting you adjust name and icon](https://blog.tomayac.com/2023/06/07/web-apps-on-macos-sonoma-14-beta/#install-experience) and also [whether to display navigation controls](https://blog.tomayac.com/2023/06/07/web-apps-on-macos-sonoma-14-beta/#settings-and-permissions).

Yes, that is neat. But that feature extends beyond the scope of the current Web Application Manifest specification (which says an installed app is one for which a manifest has been applied to a top-level traversable) and does not conform to the same defaults as processing a manifest would (e.g. default navigation scope appears to be the root of the domain, and the default display mode appears to be minimal-ui).

If that "add to home" or "add to dock" kind of feature that works for any website is to be considered "installing" within the scope of this specification, there are a lot of gaps that need to be filled regarding what is considered a "default manifest" (option 2 described [here](https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues/1168#issuecomment-6143446122)).

If it is not, then I think for the purposes of this specification the definition of "installable web app" needs to be narrowed to web apps with a manifest (option 1).

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues/1168#issuecomment-6192446153
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3c/manifest/issues/1168/6192446153@github.com>