Technical review: Add doc for the scope_extensions manifest member#39649
Technical review: Add doc for the scope_extensions manifest member#39649chrisdavidmills merged 2 commits intomdn:mainfrom
Conversation
chrisdavidmills
changed the title
|
Preview URLs External URLs (2)URL:
(comment last updated: 2025-05-28 09:48:00) |
|
|
||
| The value of each property is an object containing a `scope` property with a value specifying the exact path that will be in-scope for the referencing web app. | ||
|
|
||
| EDITORIAL: I'M ASSUMING YOU CAN INCLUDE MULTIPLE FIELDS IN THE WELL-KNOWN FILE, TO OPT-IN TO THE SCOPE OF MULTIPLE WEB APPS, OR INCLUDE DIFFERENT SCOPES IN THE SCOPE OF A SINGLE WEB APP? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is correct in the first part. Scenario:
- Foo App at
www.foo.com, manifest id ofhttps://www.foo.com - Foo App Beta at
beta.foo.com, manifest id ofhttps://beta.foo.com - Both extend their scope to included
https://help.foo.com, which is the help portal. - Thus, the help.foo.com's .well-known file will contain both manifest ids.
Since this is a dictionary, it's not possible to have multiple entries for the same manifest id.
@LuHuangMSFT to double check me
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @dmurph. This makes total sense, so I've updated the docs and removed the editorial note.
@LuHuangMSFT, please let me know if you have any further comments on this PR. Thanks!
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| > [!NOTE] | ||
| > See [Scope Extensions API Demo](https://main-pwa-origin-2.glitch.me/) for a working example. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
With the recent news from Glitch, I wonder if we should be using MDN’s GH pages-hosted demos instead.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm about to start doing an audit of all the glitch links/mentions we have on MDN, so we know what we've got and can figure out a migration plan for any demos we want to keep.
The Google Dev Rel folks are also working on this, so they should be moving their demos somewhere else.
I will merge this for now and then pick it up and fix it during the audit.
|
@chrisdavidmills Hi Chris. Sorry I'm late adding this comment. Everything in this PR looks good except for one thing - we decided to not implement the "array of strings" format in the manifest itself. Only object entries are accepted. Also, the feature is currently spec'ed at https://wicg.github.io/manifest-incubations/#scope_extensions-member. Thanks and great work! |
Hey, no worries; I'll open up a quick PR to fix that. Thx for the review! |
OK, so this one is fixed in #39794.
And the necessary data to generate the spec table is added in mdn/browser-compat-data#26983. @pepelsbey, would you mind having a quick look at these ones, given that you've just looked at the original PR? ;-) |
…39649) * Add doc for the scope_extensions manifest member * Fix for dmurph review comment
5 participants
Description
Chrome 138 supports the
scope_extensionswebapp manifest member; see https://chromestatus.com/feature/5746537956114432 for details.This PR adds a reference page for the new member.
Motivation
Additional details
Related issues and pull requests