You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Thus if your scope is "/foo/?bar", we would canonically say that the scope is "/foo/", reflecting the fact that the query string is irrelevant.
This change would not actually have any direct (specified) user-visible changes, since the only place in the manifest spec that scope is used is the "within scope" algorithm (which ignores query and fragment). However, it might be exposed to the user, for example, through developer tools that displays the canonical parse of the manifest, in which case it would be best to strip the query and fragment for clarity.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Also note that there is a proposal to extend scope syntax with query matching --- this change would only apply to legacy scope syntax which doesn't support query matching in manifest.
Since our within scope algorithm ignores the query and fragment part of the scope, I feel like we should strip those out in the steps for processing the scope.
Thus if your
scope
is"/foo/?bar"
, we would canonically say that the scope is"/foo/"
, reflecting the fact that the query string is irrelevant.This change would not actually have any direct (specified) user-visible changes, since the only place in the manifest spec that scope is used is the "within scope" algorithm (which ignores query and fragment). However, it might be exposed to the user, for example, through developer tools that displays the canonical parse of the manifest, in which case it would be best to strip the query and fragment for clarity.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: