Ya ya yawm TAG!

I'm requesting a TAG review of manifest unique id.

What uniquely identifies a web application is not defined in app manifest specification. This proposes adding an id member to the manifest with details about how it should be utilized during manifest parsing and update.

• Explainer¹ (minimally containing user needs and example code): https://github.com/philloooo/pwa-unique-id/blob/main/explainer.md
• Specification URL: https://github.com/w3c/manifest/pull/988
• Tests: [wpt folder(s), if available] - https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/pull/30409
• Security and Privacy self-review²: No security and privacy risks are expected since this doesn't expose any user information.
• GitHub repo (if you prefer feedback filed there): https://github.com/philloooo/pwa-unique-id/issues
• Primary contacts (and their relationship to the specification):
  • [Phillis Tang] (@philloooo), [Google], implementor
  • [Daniel Murphy] (@dmurph), [Google], co-implementor
  • [Marcos Cáceres] (@marcoscaceres), [W3C], spec editor
• Organization(s)/project(s) driving the specification: Google
• Key pieces of existing multi-stakeholder review or discussion of this specification: https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues/586
• External status/issue trackers for this specification (publicly visible, e.g. Chrome Status): https://www.chromestatus.com/features/6064014410907648

Further details:

• I have reviewed the TAG's Web Platform Design Principles
• Relevant time constraints or deadlines: We would like to ship this in Chrome on M96, ideally if we can get reviewed by October it would be great.
• The group where the work on this specification is currently being done: Web Applications Working Group
• The group where standardization of this work is intended to be done (if current group is a community group or other incubation venue): Web Applications Working Group
• Major unresolved issues with or opposition to this specification: none
• This work is being funded by: Google

You should also know that...

[please tell us anything you think is relevant to this review]

We'd prefer the TAG provide feedback as (please delete all but the desired option):

🐛 open issues in our GitHub repo for each point of feedback

☂️ open a single issue in our GitHub repo for the entire review

💬 leave review feedback as a comment in this issue and @-notify [github usernames]

---

CAREFULLY READ AND DELETE CONTENT BELOW THIS LINE BEFORE SUBMITTING

Please preview the issue and check that the links work before submitting.

In particular, if anything links to a URL which requires authentication (e.g. Google document), please make sure anyone with the link can access the document. We would prefer fully public documents though, since we work in the open.

¹ We require an explainer to give the relevant context for the spec review, even if the spec has some background information. For background, see our explanation of how to write a good explainer. We recommend the explainer to be in Markdown.

² A Security and Privacy questionnaire helps us understand potential security and privacy issues and mitigations for your design, and can save us asking redundant questions. See https://www.w3.org/TR/security-privacy-questionnaire/.