Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

use url equivalence excluding fragments for id comparison #1013

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

use url equivalence excluding fragments for id comparison #1013

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
22 changes: 6 additions & 16 deletions index.html
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -831,11 +831,12 @@ <h3>
application, it SHOULD treat that manifest as a description of a
distinct application, even if it is served from the same URL as that
of another application. When the user agent sees a manifest where
|manifest|["id"] [=url/equal|equals=] the [=identity=] of an
already-installed application, it SHOULD be used as a signal that
this manifest is a replacement for the already-installed
application's manifest, and not a distinct application, even if it is
served from a different URL than the one seen previously.
|manifest|["id"] [=URL serializer/exclude fragment|excluding
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we need to move this part up to the processing the manifest section.

It should go:

  1. Process the id member passing json, manifest and document URL.
  2. If document's [=processed manifest=] is not null:
    22.1 If [=processed manifest=]["id"] member is not [=url/equal|equals=] with exclude fragment true to |manifest|["id"], then return. (We might need a note here to clarify if anything should happen when there is a mismatch - it's not an error, we just drop the new manifest on the floor).
    22.2 If ???? members have changed, signal to the end user that manifest is a replacement for the already-installed application's manifest.
  3. Let document's processed manifest be manifest.

Now 22.2 might have special rules, like:

  • How do we actually if the manifest has changed? Do we JSON-serialize them and do text comparisons?
  • what happens if the scope changes, and the current page is out of scope?
  • Is there any situation where we can do a silent update? (e.g., only the theme-color changed... my gut feeling is no).
  • If the icons change, do we need to say MUST prompt? What else would should cause a prompt?

Do we need final step "24", that once we have updated the manifest, we need to re-apply the manifest. However, that causes the entire application to reload... what does that mean? Do we need to navigate back to the start URL?

fragments=] [=url/equal|equals=] the [=identity=] of an
already-installed application, it SHOULD be used as a signal that this
manifest is a replacement for the already-installed application's
manifest, and not a distinct application, even if it is served from a
different URL than the one seen previously.
</p>
<p class="note">
The [=identity=] can be used by a service that collects lists of web
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -898,17 +899,6 @@ <h3>
"https://example.com/my-app/start"
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<i>undefined</i>
</td>
<td>
"https://example.com/my-app/#here"
</td>
<td>
"https://example.com/my-app/#here"
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
""
Expand Down