Re: New manifest spec - ready for FPWD?

On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:  
> On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 06:40:43 +0100, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com (mailto:w3c@marcosc.com)> wrote:
>  
> > > Yes, the app can detect that it's running "standalone" and display a
> > > back button itself. However that was significantly more work than any
> > > other part of creating a "standalone" app, which mostly consisted in
> > > writing a manifest. It's especially a lot of work if you want to try
> > > to replicate the platform-rendered back button on all platforms.
> > >  
> > > What I think we should have is something like:
> > >  
> > > "chrome": {
> > > "back": true
> > > }
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > Yep, this is currently captured here:
> > https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues/76
> >  
> > Those of us working on this still need to investigate FxOS a bit more to  
> > see what people are using in practice and why (e.g., how much  
> > granularity do we really need? to the button level “forward”/“back", or  
> > can we just say “navigation-bar”, etc.). Captured here:
> > https://github.com/w3c-webmob/installable-webapps/issues/17
>  
>  
>  
> I'd suggest keeping the functions pretty granular. My navbar include  
> various extension buttons, and my Opera navbar included the rewind  
> function (which I loved). I think we'll set very mixed expectations if we  
> try to make general statements about what browser functionalities are,  
> that will cause more confusion than benefit.
>  
> (Unless we want to do that to try and discover exactly what people expect  
> by seeing how much of all the thingz get b0rken).

  
That’s my intention. Mozilla has been shipping this feature for a couple of months, so there may be enough data for WebMob IG to make an assessment about its usage in the wild (and maybe get an idea of people’s expectations).  
  
> > Would it suffice to use the API? It’s much simpler than trying to write  
> > out JSON by hand and wouldn’t require us to create any new special  
> > script type, etc.
> >  
> > <script>
> > if(“requestBookmark” in navigator){
> >  
> > var appDetails = {name: “Awesome app!”, mode: “standalone”};
> > navigator.requestBookmark(appDetails).then(happy,sad);
> > }
> > </script>
> >  
> > It’s more or less equivalent to making it declarative and easily passes  
> > the “OMG! that’s so easy!” test :)
>  
>  
>  
> Why wouldn't we use the API *and* allow people to write JSON if they want  
> to? Or is that what you meant?


Yes, that’s what I meant. Sorry I was not clear.  

The choices are:  

1. use a <link rel=“manifest” href=“app.json”> in the head.
2. call requestBookmark() with no argument (i.e., bookmark this page)

3. call requestBookmark() with a string URL (or URL object) to a manifest (i.e., bookmark details are here).  

4. call requestBookmark() with an object (i.e., serialize to JSON).

Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2013 07:44:10 UTC