site.webmanifest instead of manifest.json

[shoulders]

Description:

There was a discussion over at realfavicongenerator.net that the correct manifest file name should be site.webmanifest. RealFaviconGenerator/realfavicongenerator#342

Your file https://github.com/OneSignal/OneSignal-Website-SDK/releases/download/https-integration-files/OneSignal-Web-SDK-HTTPS-Integration-Files.zip uses manifest.json

Steps to Reproduce Issue:

no steps to reproduce this.

Anything else:

(any other information here)

I have searched the issues for site.webmanifest and manifest.json and found nothing.

Thanks

[jasonpang]

Hi @shoulders,

It looks like application/manifest+json is the official media type now. There's a couple reasons I don't think we'll be changing this:

a) The manifest file, originally used in older versions of Chrome, is being increasingly replaced by the W3C VAPID standard for web push subscription. Only older versions of Chrome and older forks of Chrome rely on the manifest file. The majority of subscriptions now take place with VAPID, and the manifest file isn't used at all for VAPID.

b) We haven't gotten any reports of manifest.json with a media type application/json to not be working. Our existing approach has consistently been working. There's a risk web servers might return an incorrect media type because while it recognizes .json should return application/json, web servers may not recognize .webmanifest and return application/octet-stream and require users to add additional server configuration. We definitely don't want users to have to do any extra work to add server configuration.

c) Tying to b), although the official spec has been updated with this new media type, many examples including Google's official walkthrough guide and their sample use manifest.json with a media type of application/json. This is also why we originally chose that file name and media type. There's no risk browsers not using VAPID won't support manifest.json and application/json since it's so well known.