05:57:24 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #webapps
05:57:24 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2020/10/26-webapps-irc
05:57:49 <marcosc> Scribe: marcosc
05:58:09 <marcosc> Meeting: WebApps WG - Web Manifest 1
05:58:21 <marcosc> Chair: Marcosc
05:59:36 <marcosc> Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues/906#issuecomment-711859121
06:00:56 <marcosc> rrsagent, draft minutes v2
06:00:56 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/10/26-webapps-minutes.html marcosc
06:03:11 <anssik> anssik has joined #webapps
06:08:25 <marcosc> TOPIC: Agenda bashing
06:09:56 <tomayac> present+
06:10:08 <marcosc> present+
06:10:17 <marcosc> present+ anssik
06:10:52 <marcosc> present+ Christian Liebel
06:11:47 <marcosc> CL: we could talk about these tests https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/pull/24452
06:12:02 <xiaoqian> xiaoqian has joined #webapps
06:12:26 <marcosc> AK: do we have good apple contact as they are the second implementation?
06:12:30 <christianliebel> christianliebel has joined #WebApps
06:12:38 <marcosc> AK: what's mozilla status?
06:13:15 <tomayac> WebKit's status is "partially supported" https://webkit.org/status/#specification-web-app-manifest
06:13:30 <marcosc> MC: On the Mozilla side, I'm still maintaining the implementation. But probably need to find someone else to take over at some point.
06:14:39 <marcosc> MC: we have people like hober and Maciej that we can ping... but I'm unsure who is best contact there
06:15:15 <marcosc> TS: Icon support is still lacking on the webkit side ...
06:16:23 <marcosc> MC: Not sure what their plans are with regards to icons. However, icons are supported on the Gecko side along with Blink.
06:16:50 <tomayac> scribenick tomayac
06:16:52 <kenchris> kenchris has joined #webapps
06:17:15 <tomayac> MC: Calling for agenda topics
06:17:15 <kenchris> +present Kenneth_Christiansen
06:17:24 <tomayac> AK: MIlestones up-to-date?
06:17:35 <anssik> Present https://github.com/w3c/manifest/milestone/1
06:17:45 <tomayac> ...Been looking at Christian's milestones chart, is it still updated?
06:18:06 <tomayac> CL: Almost, just one issue
06:18:15 <tomayac> ...that doesn't have a label
06:18:26 <tomayac> ...Only the latest issue would have to be triaged
06:18:40 <christianliebel> https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues/934
06:18:56 <tomayac> ...We should add issue 934 to the milestones, or decide if we want to
06:19:01 <tomayac> MC: Yes
06:19:31 <anssik> Present+ Marcos_Caceres, Anssi_Kostiainen, Kenneth_Christiansen, Christian_Lieber, Thomas_Steiner
06:19:33 <tomayac> MC: I see Matt also reviewed it
06:20:04 <anssik> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
06:20:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/10/26-webapps-minutes.html anssik
06:20:13 <anssik> RRSAgent, make logs public
06:20:16 <tomayac> MC: Alright, issues are up-to-date
06:20:33 <tomayac> CL: We could have a look at the testing topic, around shortcuts
06:20:41 <tomayac> ...Which is the only pending test.
06:20:45 <marcosc> https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/pull/24452
06:20:46 <christianliebel> https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/pull/24452
06:21:13 <marcosc> TOPIC: Shorcuts tests
06:21:16 <tomayac> MC: Let's switch topics to testing
06:21:31 <anssik> scribenick: tomayac
06:21:40 <anssik> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
06:21:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/10/26-webapps-minutes.html anssik
06:22:00 <anssik> Scribe: tomayac
06:22:01 <tomayac> MC: Tests are looking good. The only comment I had was: right now we're defaulting the URL to the manifest
06:22:05 <anssik> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
06:22:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/10/26-webapps-minutes.html anssik
06:22:25 <marcosc> i.e., we have url: ""
06:22:52 <marcosc> https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/pull/24452/files#r467212849
06:23:01 <tomayac> CL: Another discussion is around (pasted link)
06:23:31 <tomayac> MC: Whether having an empty URL for "url" was a bug or a developer issue.
06:23:42 <marcosc> "shortcuts": [{"url": "",}]
06:23:49 <tomayac> MC: For example (pasted code)
06:24:00 <tomayac> MC: IMHO it's not a bug
06:24:12 <tomayac> ...Basically just a developer error. An impl can warn.
06:24:23 <tomayac> ...But don't think. we should do more about it
06:24:29 <tomayac> CL: So resolve the convo
06:24:53 <tomayac> MC: Christian, are you OK to add the missing files?
06:24:55 <tomayac> CL: Yes
06:25:01 <tomayac> ...Can bring back the test
06:25:33 <tomayac> MC: An interesting problem that arises from shortcuts and other deep links is what happens if an app is showing and you go to one of the shortcuts.
06:25:41 <tomayac> ...What happens to the history of the app itself?
06:25:47 <tomayac> ...I'm droppping a link
06:26:14 <tomayac> ...imagine you launch an app, navigate around. Then you minimize the app. Then in Windows you pick a shortcut.
06:26:31 <tomayac> KC: On Windows it starts another instance
06:26:44 <tomayac> ...That's Windows, not sure about others.
06:26:54 <tomayac> MC: Any time you click a shortcut?
06:27:07 <tomayac> KC: That's why we have the launch event that could intervene
06:27:12 <marcosc> Related issue https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/6085
06:27:26 <tomayac> KC: I sometimes open Twitter in a separate tab for quick one-offs
06:27:35 <tomayac> MC: This came up in HTML for navigator
06:27:46 <tomayac> MC: Is this supported in Chrome OS?
06:27:53 <tomayac> KC: On Android it's implemented
06:28:07 <tomayac> KC: (Tries what happens on Android)
06:28:33 <tomayac> ...On Android it replaces the running instance
06:29:01 <tomayac> ...I lost my state
06:29:10 <tomayac> TS: Isn't this what native apps do?
06:29:21 <tomayac> KC: (Tries what happens on Google Maps)
06:29:32 <tomayac> KC: This is what happens on native apps
06:30:15 <tomayac> TS: Mostly is not confusing. People don't assume several instances for an app
06:30:28 <tomayac> KC: It's annoying since it replaces whatever users were doing
06:30:40 <tomayac> MC: (Also trying)
06:30:54 <tomayac> MC: You tried with Maps?
06:30:59 <tomayac> KC: Yes, with Mpas
06:31:06 <tomayac> s/Mpas/Maps
06:31:12 <tomayac> KC: The same with Twitter
06:31:23 <tomayac> MC: I wonder why? I agree that it's annoying
06:31:56 <tomayac> TS: Isn't this just apps handling state badly? They should warn when state would be lost.
06:31:59 <tomayac> CL: Agree
06:32:13 <tomayac> MC: It just kills the other app and launches a new one
06:32:35 <tomayac> ...testing a native app with shortcuts
06:32:46 <tomayac> ...Let me triple check
06:33:06 <tomayac> MC: Closes and does a complete replace
06:33:20 <tomayac> ...Don't have a strong opinion
06:33:43 <tomayac> TS: My opinion would be to reflect what the platform does
06:34:29 <tomayac> CL: Would expect Windows to replace the instance
06:34:38 <xiaoqian> xiaoqian has joined #webapps
06:34:42 <tomayac> TS: We should confirm with Microsoft that launching a new instance is intended
06:34:52 <tomayac> MC: Let me confrim with Aaron tomorrow
06:34:59 <tomayac> s/confrim/confirm
06:35:41 <tomayac> MC: On Windows it opens a new browser instance, on Android it kills the running app and restarts (causing a complete replace)
06:36:10 <tomayac> ...Seems to follow OS conventions
06:36:24 <marcosc> https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/6085#issuecomment-716337809
06:36:37 <marcosc> MC: comments I made over at the HTML spc
06:36:42 <marcosc> s/spc/spec
06:36:45 <tomayac> MC: Just putting in a comment over at the HTML spec
06:37:31 <tomayac> MC: OK, that addresses both the test and the feature per se as it relates to deep links
06:38:05 <tomayac> TOPIC: General moving forward
06:38:30 <tomayac> MC: Let's have a look again at the milestones
06:38:38 <marcosc> https://github.com/w3c/manifest/milestone/1
06:39:26 <marcosc> "Support a way to update explicitly"
06:39:30 <tomayac> MC: Kenneth have you had a chance to support updates?
06:39:30 <marcosc> https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues/446
06:39:41 <tomayac> s/updates/update
06:39:52 <tomayac> KC: Not yet
06:40:05 <tomayac> MC: Are there user interventions?
06:41:10 <tomayac> TS: Here's what Chrome does: https://web.dev/manifest-updates/
06:41:32 <tomayac> ...Nothing standardized quite yet, but since Marcos was calling for behavior documentation
06:42:01 <tomayac> MC: Added that link to the issue 446
06:42:03 <marcosc> https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues/446#issuecomment-716340037
06:42:32 <tomayac> MC: That's enough for now, thanks to Tom, side thanks to Pete
06:43:05 <tomayac> MC: Is there anything that anyone is itching to work on?
06:43:07 <tomayac> KC: No
06:43:14 <tomayac> CL: Tasks 380, examples of scope
06:43:21 <tomayac> ...Was waiting for some PR to land
06:43:37 <tomayac> ...Did we decide on the scope thing? Forgot the exact history
06:44:05 <christianliebel> https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues/380
06:44:25 <tomayac> CL: This is my issue, not sure whtat's blocking it now
06:44:29 <christianliebel> https://github.com/w3c/manifest/pull/880
06:44:35 <tomayac> ...I think it's the (pasted link) PR
06:46:38 <tomayac> AK: There's another web.dev article https://web.dev/add-manifest/#scope
06:46:46 <tomayac> MC: We were close to finishing this…
06:47:01 <tomayac> CL: Also open to resume weekly calls or take on other issues
06:47:37 <tomayac> MC: The discussion is a wall of text
06:47:54 <tomayac> ...Christian brough tthis up. Should we resume the working sessions
06:48:05 <tomayac> s/brough tthis/brought this/
06:48:14 <tomayac> MC: I would also agree
06:48:32 <tomayac> MC: Not sure how much you got out of this, Kenneth
06:48:38 <tomayac> KC: The first ones were good
06:48:52 <tomayac> AK: If we focus on issue, pre-triage and then we can prepare
06:49:14 <tomayac> MC: Agree. If we need specific expertise, we should do it that way
06:49:32 <tomayac> KC: Same issue as Anssi, always takes time to warm up and get context
06:49:45 <tomayac> AK: If you think others point of views could help, let us know
06:49:57 <tomayac> ...Then we can have a short chat, very focused
06:50:10 <tomayac> MC: Don't have many of those, but that's a good problem to have
06:50:31 <tomayac> MC: Hoping to re-engage with the spec, starting this week. Will drag people in as needed
06:50:45 <tomayac> MC: Given we had the lapse in working on this, we have all lost track a bit
06:50:56 <tomayac> ...That's fair, we can catch up
06:51:08 <tomayac> CL: Exact same thing. Was the same status already back in May
06:51:26 <tomayac> KC: For something that's a living standard that's good
06:51:34 <tomayac> AK: Do we have a ton of feature requests?
06:51:40 <tomayac> MC: Yes
06:51:45 <marcosc> https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Feature+Request%22
06:51:52 <marcosc> Feature Requests ^^^
06:51:54 <tomayac> AK: Do we have a plan?
06:52:14 <tomayac> MC: Right now the plan is to defer all feature requests until we can proceed the spec to CR
06:52:19 <tomayac> ...Not taking any new features
06:52:31 <tomayac> ...Unless they are of siginificant prio to implementors
06:52:49 <tomayac> AK: Is it fair to say Chrome/Google implement, and then sometimes Apple follows?
06:53:09 <tomayac> MC: Yes and no, mostly no. Hopeful Apple folks will continue to talk to us
06:53:17 <tomayac> ...about the things they plan to support
06:53:44 <tomayac> TS: Who was the Apple contact?
06:53:48 <tomayac> MC: No one really
06:54:04 <tomayac> AK: The second implementor doesn't make a contact available
06:54:16 <tomayac> AK: Who is the more likely 2nd implementor?
06:54:20 <tomayac> MC: Mozilla
06:54:31 <tomayac> AK: OK, happy to have Mozilla then
06:54:47 <tomayac> MC: I'm pushing Mozilla's impl forward
06:54:56 <tomayac> AK: Do you have funding?
06:55:20 <tomayac> MC: No funding, but it's my impl, it's an easy spec
06:55:28 <tomayac> AK: Are you looking for funding?
06:55:35 <tomayac> MC: I like my independence
06:55:41 <tomayac> AK: Just asking?
06:56:35 <tomayac> MC: Not a big deal really, it's simple enough, I wrote the code and know it
06:56:44 <tomayac> MC: No compiling involved
06:57:18 <tomayac> MC: We will use Firefox as the second impl, having Safari as the 3rd impl is also good. Safari adheres pretty closely.
06:57:28 <tomayac> ...Impl is open source and we can fix things
06:57:34 <tomayac> KC: Not icons, though
06:57:45 <tomayac> AK: Has Igalia been doing any manifest work?
06:57:49 <tomayac> MC: No
06:57:57 <tomayac> AK: You can throw money at Igalia
06:58:47 <tomayac> MC: Let's wrap this up
06:58:53 <christianliebel> https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues/905
06:58:53 <tomayac> CL: Quick question
06:59:09 <tomayac> ...It's about the monochrome purpose
06:59:24 <marcosc> Related chrome bug https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1096388
07:00:29 <tomayac> TS: The Chrome bug is marked fix, Matt was the reported, glenrob@chromium the owner
07:00:44 <tomayac> TS: Matt is our contact
07:01:03 <tomayac> CL: Judging from the description, it seems to be a simple rename
07:01:15 <tomayac> ...Question would be: is this actually implemented?
07:01:22 <tomayac> MC: Looks like this landed?
07:01:57 <tomayac> TS: Can someone fill in the context?
07:02:32 <tomayac> CL: For notifications before you had the badge icon, so we decided to intro monochrome where you have different color reqs, so it's basically a new name
07:02:52 <tomayac> TS: Let's ping Matt on the GitHub thread
07:02:55 <tomayac> CL: Sure
07:03:03 <tomayac> CL: I do it
07:04:14 <marcosc> "Renamed Manifest::Purpose::BADGE to MONOCHROME to match the spec."
07:04:28 <tomayac> TS: According to the first comment in the bug, monochrome just is there, but doesn't do anything
07:05:08 <tomayac> TS: Why monochrome, and no colors? System req?
07:05:24 <tomayac> MC: Changes to monochrome, so it could be re-colored
07:05:29 <tomayac> ...and used generically
07:06:08 <tomayac> MC: And I think even Safari uses something related
07:06:18 <tomayac> TS: Yes, there is something for the touch bar on Macs
07:06:27 <tomayac> MC: It's in a similar vein
07:06:53 <tomayac> MC: Any other topics?
07:06:58 <tomayac> TOPIC: Adjourn
07:07:03 <anssik> RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
07:07:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/10/26-webapps-minutes.html anssik
10:21:32 <xiaoqian> xiaoqian has joined #webapps
21:01:54 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #webapps
21:01:54 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2020/10/26-webapps-irc
21:02:09 <marcosc> Meeting: Web Manifest 2
21:02:23 <marcosc> Chair: Marcosc
21:02:31 <dmurph> +p
21:02:41 <marcosc> present+
21:02:51 <dmurph> present+
21:02:56 <marcosc> TOPIC: Agenda
21:03:51 <christianliebel> christianliebel has joined #WebApps
21:03:58 <marcosc> * "Add a unique identifier for a PWA" - https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues/586
21:03:59 <marcosc> * "Adding field `display_override` to the manifest" - https://github.com/w3c/manifest/pull/932
21:04:11 <christianliebel> present+
21:07:13 <marcosc> present+ Tiger Oakes
21:07:43 <marcosc> present+ Aaron Gustanson
21:08:12 <marcosc> present+ Alex Russell
21:08:49 <aarongu> aarongu has joined #webapps
21:08:57 <krosylight> krosylight has joined #webapps
21:09:07 <aarongu> here+
21:09:09 <slightlyoff> present+
21:09:19 <marcosc> present+ krosylight
21:09:21 <slightlyoff> scribenick: slightlyoff
21:09:26 <aarongu> present+
21:09:27 <krosylight> present+
21:09:47 <marcosc> TOPIC: Add a unique identifier for a PWA
21:09:55 <marcosc> https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues/586
21:10:56 <slightlyoff> dmurph: I can give an overview...added it to the agenda before some of the end of the bug's discussion, but to summarize, "what is a web app?", "how do we uniquely identify a webapp?". Need to solve htis for associated issues: udpates, reviews, etc.
21:12:15 <slightlyoff> dmurph: currently done 2 different ways in Chromium. On mobile, it's tied to manifest URL. Nice, but you have to have a URL to be a webapp. Some folks have a goal of "let's just have the manifest by itself uniquely identify a site"...well, manifest + origin. Some efforts to decouple the manifest from the document URL...one thing still tying the webapp to something else...
21:12:50 <slightlyoff> dmurph: desktop does this differently; uses the `start_url`. Downside: if a manifest updates the `start_url`, silently breaks the app. Icons now fail to update, etc.
21:13:04 <slightlyoff> q+
21:13:23 <slightlyoff> dmurph: so ew're already in a bad state, but how do we get to a state where they're standardised?
21:14:09 <slightlyoff> aarongu: is it disregarding query string in the `start_url` case?
21:14:12 <slightlyoff> dmurph: don't know
21:14:25 <slightlyoff> dmurph: we'd need to test. Using a hash of the `start_url` internally.
21:14:36 <slightlyoff> dmurph: summary of the thread is origin + full manifest URL
21:15:21 <slightlyoff> dmurph: there's no restriction on having a webapp manifest being on the same origin as the webapp. E.g., `https://example.com/manifest.json` can be pointed to by `https://b.com/`
21:15:39 <slightlyoff> aarongu: we were trying to resolve that because we were wondering if 3rd parties should be able to install
21:16:01 <slightlyoff> aarongu: there's a discussion tomorrow about triggering install from a 3rd party....so a PWA app store could trigger an install....kind of related
21:16:19 <slightlyoff> aarongu: if I understand correctly, want to create an association of a PWA with a storefront?
21:16:22 <slightlyoff> dmurph: and updates
21:17:04 <slightlyoff> aarongu: one of the things I've been looking at (no explainer yet) is the ratings and reviews piece; looking at tying to he `related_applications` entries unique identifiers
21:17:22 <slightlyoff> aarongu: maybe that's a way to resolve it in the context of app stores?
21:17:30 <slightlyoff> dmurph: haven't thought about how this related to app stores
21:17:41 <slightlyoff> dmurph: origin + identifier (manifest URL or start_url)
21:18:06 <slightlyoff> dmurph: my proposal was `start_url` but have it be overridable by the developer...we simplified down to manifest URL
21:18:26 <slightlyoff> dmurph: ben francis mentioned that it was manifest url
21:18:43 <slightlyoff> tiger: mozilla uses `start_url` on mobile
21:19:07 <slightlyoff> dmurph: we're going to need an escape hatch somehow...a field for "override my unique identifier URL"
21:19:38 <slightlyoff> aarongu: or for instance if your URL changes
21:19:44 <slightlyoff> (changing domains/ownership, e.g.(
21:19:55 <slightlyoff> dmurph: for this we were explicitly not considering an origin change in the scope of this bug
21:22:11 <dmurph> there are also first party origin sets
21:22:31 <slightlyoff> slightlyoff: when we originally designing this, I'd suggested SW scope + manifest URL, so happy to see origin + manifest URL
21:24:21 <slightlyoff> <discussion of origin + identifier>
21:24:31 <slightlyoff> dmurph: thoughts on manifest URL vs. `start_url`?
21:24:57 <slightlyoff> aarongu: based on the query-string issue w/ `start_url`, I'd prefer manifest_url
21:26:08 <slightlyoff> slightlyoff: I suspect we'll have some behaviors that won't work w/ query params across cache claering, both manifest URL and start_url
21:26:30 <slightlyoff> aarongu: we use query params on manifests to do language differentiation
21:26:49 <slightlyoff> aarongu: we are going to look into this to see if fingerprinting is happenign at scale
21:27:01 <slightlyoff> dmurph: are we happy to couple to manifest URL?
21:28:15 <slightlyoff> slightlyoff: we could perhaps solve the hermetic issue in Web Bundles? Is there a situation that isn't addressed that way?
21:28:26 <slightlyoff> dmurph: perhaps the problems related to CDN hosting of manifests?
21:28:48 <slightlyoff> marcosc: looking at the history here...we haven't worked out the update mechanism and how it relates back to this
21:29:11 <slightlyoff> marcosc: when we originally designed, thought some impl detail would identify things...wouldn't be developer visible
21:29:38 <slightlyoff> marcosc: the use-case of storefronts...how do I surface these apps. Right now, need to solve the update mechanism
21:30:20 <slightlyoff> marcosc: looking at the implementations for install time, an implementation detail across all engines?
21:30:32 <slightlyoff> marcosc: by settling on something...needs to be in the spec?
21:31:43 <slightlyoff> slightlyoff: proposed resolutions: can we summarize, put in non-normative manifest spec text? And if taht's not palletable, write up as a separate incubation/doc? Important to have it written down
21:31:53 <slightlyoff> marcosc: sounds ok; dmurph can you write this up?
21:31:54 <slightlyoff> dmurph: yes
21:32:11 <slightlyoff> ACTION: dmurph to write up conclusion from this discussion for inclusion
21:33:13 <NotWoods> Android code: https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/android-components/blob/master/components/feature/pwa/src/main/java/mozilla/components/feature/pwa/db/ManifestEntity.kt
21:33:38 <slightlyoff> marcosc: how does this work on Firefox for Android?
21:34:06 <slightlyoff> NotWoods: this is in a SQL db...can be migrated. Older identifiers could be detected and handled differently
21:34:19 <slightlyoff> NotWoods: a wrapper around the manifest could determine what these are
21:34:30 <slightlyoff> dmurph: migration in Chromium is likely to be complex
21:34:59 <slightlyoff> marcosc: likely as far as we can go on this issue; final thoughts?
21:35:45 <slightlyoff> dmurph: final thought: do we know what Safari does? Maybe we can add an identifier field before we have to do a big migration?
21:37:52 <marcosc> q+
21:40:20 <marcosc> slightlyoff: we could use the service worker's scope URL in conjunction with the start URL, where the start URL must be in-scope of the service worker scope.
21:40:42 <slightlyoff> slightlyoff: `start_url` doesn't seem as clearly to identify the app's "identiy" as the manifest URL (SW scope + manifest were my old proposal)
21:41:33 <slightlyoff> <discussion of browsers that don't require SW registrations>
21:42:28 <slightlyoff> marcosc / slightlyoff: <back and forth on SW scope and origin relationship>
21:42:42 <marcosc> TOPIC: Adding field `display_override` to the manifest
21:42:43 <slightlyoff> dmurph: I have enough to go on
21:42:47 <marcosc> https://github.com/w3c/manifest/pull/932
21:43:27 <slightlyoff> dmurph: quick overview: simplest way to understand the problem: if a site wants `minimal-ui`, only compatible w/ developers that support it.
21:43:39 <slightlyoff> dmurph: we have a hard-coded fallback chain today
21:44:11 <slightlyoff> dmurph: fullscreen -> standalone -> minimal -> browser is strict
21:44:45 <slightlyoff> dmurph: what about sites/browsers that don't overlap this way? e.g., site that would want to be `minimal-ui` if available, but browser if not, but still installable?
21:45:05 <slightlyoff> dmurph: want to let developers have control over their preferred fallback order
21:45:12 <aarongu> q+
21:45:33 <slightlyoff> dmurph: this unlocks future explorations for display; e,g. tabs and control overlay. Unclear where to put these in the fallback list
21:46:18 <slightlyoff> dmurph: standalone and minimal relationship to tabs? Hard to make a single call. Adds flexibility to better support those additions. More ideas around "create your own display mode" for allowing more optionality around features. Starting with custom fallback list.
21:46:49 <slightlyoff> aarongu: had the same question...marked resolve, but matt brought up the example of fallback order
21:47:14 <slightlyoff> aarongu: how to handle situations where browsrers don't support `display_override`? Missing from the PR
21:47:26 <slightlyoff> <discussion of how to handle a missing example in the PR>
21:47:40 <slightlyoff> dmurph: will handle it; can you re-open the discussion?
21:48:13 <slightlyoff> dmurph: blocked on getting feedback from others. Signals from Mozilla and Apple would be helpful. What aren't we seeing? What should be done differently?
21:48:42 <slightlyoff> marcosc: krosylight, I know you're just observing, but perhaps you can figure out who can look at this from Mozilla?
21:48:57 <slightlyoff> krosylight: I can try to poke at someone who can look at this
21:49:10 <marcosc> https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/447
21:49:13 <slightlyoff> marcosc: was a Standards Position filed on Mozilla?
21:49:21 <slightlyoff> <yes, #447>
21:50:16 <aarongu> q+
21:50:17 <slightlyoff> NotWoods: how will this look for a devloper writing a manifest that only targets new browsers? would you _only_ provide this field?
21:50:48 <slightlyoff> dmurph: you'd still need `display`, I htink. Could just be `browser`, but you'd add `display_override` in addition
21:51:02 <slightlyoff> NotWoods: is that confusing? Could we have a world where you only use override if you don't care about back-compat?
21:51:53 <slightlyoff> dmurph: primary issue was back-compat, as you say. JSON parsers do weird stuff w/ ordering, so we didn't want to touch `display`. Could change this back to be "either"...not require `display`...odd situation, but I'm imagining that developers are looking for docs for each field, but docs would explain fallback chain
21:52:03 <slightlyoff> marcosc: can you discuss JSON ordering issue?
21:52:43 <slightlyoff> dmurph: you could set a `display` w/ an array, and a second `display` property w/ a string...one would win, not what folks wnat, would require more hacking around JSON parsing
21:53:12 <slightlyoff> dmurph: would like to still support `display` for compat reasons...you're right, though, that this is weird
21:53:44 <slightlyoff> aarongu: my only other comment is that we need to make this clear to developers that this is only necessary that you only need this if you want _different_ fallback behavior
21:54:01 <slightlyoff> aarongu:  as for only having one or the other, technically nothing is required
21:54:13 <slightlyoff> NotWoods: should we support the new fields in `display` too?
21:54:27 <slightlyoff> NotWoods: should we require the array for newer types?
21:54:52 <slightlyoff> <discussion of where a theoretical `tabbed` type would be allowed>
21:55:14 <slightlyoff> dmurph: I'd prefer that be in the array; would otherwise need to spec the strict fallback ordering
21:55:33 <slightlyoff> dmurph: we can think of cases where folks don't want the set-in-stone-fallback-order
21:55:48 <slightlyoff> NotWoods: would be confusing to say "use `display`, except for these cases..."
21:56:36 <slightlyoff> slightlyoff: to NotWoods point, supporting a valid value in _either_ location seems like a good "v2" solution
21:57:00 <slightlyoff> <discussion of name of properties>
21:57:41 <slightlyoff> aarongu: tabbed is one of these situati8ons where feature set configuration with 4 modes with options might prevent the need to add new modes in the future?
21:58:24 <slightlyoff> dmurph: there's a section on this in the explainer; e.g. pieces around back button...proposed a way for the developer to create an alias (e.g. "tab without back button"), with explicit fallback order
21:58:30 <christianliebel> https://github.com/WICG/display-override/blob/master/explainer.md
21:58:58 <slightlyoff> <discussion of name>
21:59:19 <slightlyoff> aarongu: I was arguing for "fallback" in the name...but if it's going to do more work futher down the road, maybe that doesn't make as much sense?
21:59:35 <slightlyoff> dmurph: how do folks think about `display_fallback_chain` or `display_fallback_list`?
21:59:46 <aarongu> Discussion of display_modifiers: https://github.com/WICG/window-controls-overlay/blob/master/explainer.md
21:59:55 <slightlyoff> dmurph: could do `fallbacks`? descriptive enough?
22:00:13 <slightlyoff> slightlyoff: timebox the bike-shedding?
22:03:25 <marcosc> TOPIC: Badge renamed to monochrome
22:03:29 <marcosc> https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues/905
22:03:39 <marcosc> MC: we were wondering if it had landed in Chrome
22:03:56 <marcosc> TO: It looks like it did land.
22:04:29 <marcosc> DM: Not sure if I can answer if this has shipped or anything yet, but will get confirmation.
22:04:57 <marcosc> TOPIC: Adjourned
22:05:13 <marcosc> RRSAgent make minutes public
22:05:29 <marcosc> rrsagent, make log public
22:05:35 <marcosc> rrsagent, draft minutes v2
22:05:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/10/26-webapps-minutes.html marcosc
22:06:28 <marcosc> Present- Anssi_Kostiainen
22:06:34 <marcosc> rrsagent, draft minutes v2
22:06:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/10/26-webapps-minutes.html marcosc
22:06:40 <jsbell> jsbell has joined #webapps
22:13:58 <marcosc> rrsagent, bye
22:13:58 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in https://www.w3.org/2020/10/26-webapps-actions.rdf :
22:13:58 <RRSAgent> ACTION: dmurph to write up conclusion from this discussion for inclusion [1]
22:13:58 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2020/10/26-webapps-irc#T21-32-11