On 7 July 2015 at 07:21, Jonas Sicking <[email protected]> wrote: > Generally speaking, CDNs use a new URL any time you want to change the > file contents.
Alex Russell claims this impression is outdated, that the vast majority of modern CDNs do allow for stable URLs. How can we get some objective data on this? > Very few developers will think about how to update the icon when they > originally deploy the website. That won't be something that they think > about until it actually comes time to update the branding, which often > won't be long after they first deploy. > That is probably true. > > It says that the user agent may > > "periodically check if the contents of a manifest has been modified > (e.g., > > by honoring HTTP cache directives associated with the manifest or by > > checking for updates after the web application has been launched)". > > Does any other implementation actually do that? > No not as far as I know, it's still untested. Chrome doesn't currently implement the updating, though I understand they plan to in the future. I'm trying to find out about Opera. > Yeah, the spec definitely needs to be updated here. As long as the > spec allows the manifest to be hosted on a different origin, and thus > on a CDN, we should assume that the manifest URL is meaningless and > won't be kept valid for any extended period of time. > I would have preferred the same-origin restriction, but I'm not entirely convinced this is true. I would really like to see some data on this. > Nothing that the spec says here will make a difference short of > requiring that the manifest is same-origin. Unfortunately we lost that battle. If you want to continue to push for that in the spec, we're going to need to come up with some compelling new arguments. Ben
_______________________________________________ dev-b2g mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
