12577 2011-04-30 16:25:01 +0000 Offline Web applications: we should discourage the inclusion of the main page in the manifest 2011-08-04 05:04:12 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG LC1 HTML5 spec unspecified All All RESOLVED WONTFIX P2 normal --- 1 benjamin ian benjamin ian mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 47830 0 benjamin 2011-04-30 16:25:01 +0000 In the introduction, one can find the following note: "Authors are encouraged to include the main page in the manifest also, but in practice the page that referenced the manifest is automatically cached even if it isn't explicitly mentioned." The problem is the following pattern I noticed for web applications: -the web application uses a single document named index.html -it is served as the default page of some directory e.g.: http://example.com/webapp/ -the manifest include index.html This causes the user-agent to download the web application twice: once for '/', once for index.html I think we should say instead that it is not required to list the document itself in the manifest. 49958 1 ian 2011-06-21 05:40:21 +0000 Well we should encourage the manifest to not include a URL that isn't the canonical URL, and then we should encourage authors to only have one URL per page, sure... but why would that mean not encouraging the explicit listing of the canonical URL? 51930 2 ian 2011-08-01 22:19:15 +0000 Also, having both files downloaded isn't a huge deal. The URL the author expects to be used is one that really must be cached, because that's the one that links will point to within the app (so if it's omitted and the user starts from a non-canonical URL, then while offline clicks on a link, then clicks back to the main page, it'd break if it wasn't cached). EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: I don't really see the problem here. 52785 3 mike 2011-08-04 05:04:12 +0000 mass-moved component to LC1