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)

@marcoscaceres wrote:
> We need to clarify that the manifest is always the computed manifest with potential UA overrides. That means that there doesn't need to be a "real" manifest. Just that one is computed and that's the one that is applied.

Yes, that would be one way to resolve the current inconsistency. But until such a time as the specification explains how to install a web app without a manifest or manifest URL (which it currently depends on), do you agree that the phrase "any website is an installable web application" is not entirely accurate?

Related: Whilst I recognise they do not have full cross-vendor support, the latest proposals for the [`navigator.install()` API](https://github.com/MicrosoftEdge/MSEdgeExplainers/blob/main/WebInstall/explainer.md) and [`<install>` element](https://github.com/WICG/install-element/blob/main/explainer-manifest-url.md) both require a "real" manifest.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues/1168#issuecomment-6193060149
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3c/manifest/issues/1168/6193060149@github.com>