Re: [manifest] V1 ready for wider review

On Thursday, February 13, 2014 at 1:21 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Marcos Caceres < (> wrote:
> I still think that leaving out name and icons from a manifest about
> bookmarks is a big mistake. I just made my case here
> Basically I think we need to make the manifest more self sufficient. I
> think that we're getting Ruby's postulate the wrong way around by
> making the file that describes the bookmark not contain all the data
> about the bookmark. Instead the two most important pieces about the
> bookmark, name and icons, will live in a completely separate HTML
> file, often with no way to find yourself from the manifest to that
> separate HTML file.

Given the rationale in [1], we've put name and icons back into the spec. The fallback model is:

1.  If name and/or icons in manifest, use those. Ignore the HTML ones.
2.  If either name or icon are missing, fallback to HTML.

In 2, it's RECOMMENDED devs and implementors choose "application-name" and <link rel="icon"> over proprietary equivalents, of course. 


Received on Saturday, 15 February 2014 11:54:27 UTC