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.

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

Why is the doc published as a WG Note? #34

Open
dontcallmedom opened this issue Apr 21, 2021 · 7 comments
Open

Why is the doc published as a WG Note? #34

dontcallmedom opened this issue Apr 21, 2021 · 7 comments

Comments

@dontcallmedom
Copy link
Member

https://www.w3.org/TR/manifest-app-info/ is published as a WG Note, but it seems to contain normative descriptions of fields - is there any reason this is not going on the Rec track?

(the proximate reason for me asking is that this document wasn't detected for addition in our browser-specs list because of its status as a WG Note - but arguably, others could be thrown off by that status)

@marcoscaceres
Copy link
Member

It shouldn't contain normative things. We should fix that.

@dontcallmedom
Copy link
Member Author

pushing back a bit - it feels this is defining features that we want content to conform to (e.g. we don't want app manifest to start using the categories property to describe something else), and that we want stores (and possibly some UAs) to interop on - I remain unclear why this is being taken on the Note path.

@marcoscaceres
Copy link
Member

Note path was because these are single implementation features. Additionally, they don't affect the functionality of web applications (or browsers interfacing with web apps), so conformance wasn't really necessary.

@kenchris
Copy link

Well Chrome is using description and screenshots as part of the install dialog on Android when both are available

@marcoscaceres
Copy link
Member

That's great, but in Web Apps WG, as per our charter, we are pretty strict about only standardizing multi-engine features. As Chair, I made the call for features to be a Note until such time as we get a second engine interested.

@aarongustafson
Copy link
Collaborator

aarongustafson commented Apr 22, 2021

I think the other challenge here is that most of the implementors targeted by this document are catalogs. When we started, no browsers were interested. If we can get one more non-Chromium browser to express interest and plan an implementation, it would be great to move this to a standards track and have it be a WD rather than a Note.

@marcoscaceres
Copy link
Member

If we can get one more non-Chromium browser to express interest and plan an implementation, it would be great to move this to a standards track and have it be a WD rather than a Note.

Agree. That would be good.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants