Re: Kickoff application manifest work

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 06:56:13 +0200, Anne van Kesteren <>  

> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Marcos Caceres <>  
> wrote:
>> The current proposal can be found here:
> I wonder to what extent we actually need a manifest. I think it's main
> benefit might be in grouping a set of pages, but whether that needs to
> be via a manifest I'm less sure about.

I think pretty much any mechanism that groups pages *is* a manifest. There  
are lots of ways to make them, but given that most shipping solutions have  
converged on something that looks a lot like the W3C widgets manifest  
format (in XML), or something in JSON that is very similar, it seems  
reasonable to assume that isn't a bad starting point.

> A requirement that keeps coming back for web applications (i.e. those
> served in a browser over HTTP, such as ) is
> that multiple of them per origin should be supported.


> Reasoning for this is simplicity of deploying new applications and to
> some extent to reduce the number of DNS queries for a suite of
> applications.

> Downside of that approach is increased attack surface for a suite
> applications

Can you please expand on that?

> and no trivial boundary between them (given a URL it's not
> clear to which application it belongs).

Well, it is true that a given URL might not be able to say what  
application it belongs to. But then, it may not need to, or even be  
desirable. To take silly examples, images rarely know what pages they are  
part of and scripts often don't. That seems to be a feature, not a bug.

> Navigation Controller solves the grouping of a set of pages using an
> origin plus wildcard matching for a set of URLs, although as currently
> proposed a subset of those URLs might be something else altogether
> again, without much declarative control.
> For event pages/workers you'll want something similar. To identify
> what a URL's associated event page/worker is.
> It might be though that maybe we should put the boundary for
> applications on the web on the origin level. It would certainly be
> extremely convenient and allow for a whole bunch of simplifications.

Yeah, but the price of enforcing origin-based restrictions on the Web is  
that we break a lot of the "web"-ness. While there are security reasons  
for doing so in many cases, I think the platform loses each time we build  
such a restriction. The purpose of things like CORS is to reduce that cost  
compared to the simplified case of a rigid same-origin policy, and I think  
that's a pretty good thing.

just 2 kopecks


Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex         Find more at

Received on Wednesday, 19 June 2013 07:00:00 UTC