On Thursday, February 13, 2014 at 1:21 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Marcos Caceres <mar...@marcosc.com
> (mailto:mar...@marcosc.com)> wrote:
>
> I still think that leaving out name and icons from a manifest about
> bookmarks is a big mistake. I just made my case here
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2014Feb/0039.html
>
> Basically I think we need to make the manifest more self sufficient. I
> think that we're getting Ruby's postulate the wrong way around by
> making the file that describes the bookmark not contain all the data
> about the bookmark. Instead the two most important pieces about the
> bookmark, name and icons, will live in a completely separate HTML
> file, often with no way to find yourself from the manifest to that
> separate HTML file.
>
Given the rationale in [1], we've put name and icons back into the spec. The
fallback model is:
1. If name and/or icons in manifest, use those. Ignore the HTML ones.
2. If either name or icon are missing, fallback to HTML.
In 2, it's RECOMMENDED devs and implementors choose "application-name" and
<link rel="icon"> over proprietary equivalents, of course.
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2014Feb/0039.html
