Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Request: consider extension store implementation and review policy during specification process #24

Closed
twschiller opened this issue Jun 26, 2021 · 3 comments
Labels
inconsistency Inconsistent behavior across browsers spec clarification Needs clarification when specified

Comments

@twschiller
Copy link

twschiller commented Jun 26, 2021

Context

In practice, the extension manifest is a combination of 1) technical specification, 2) browser implementation quirks/bugs, 3) the technical limitations of the web store, and 4) the review policies of the web store

Examples:
3. The Firefox web store has a maximum file size of 4mb: mozilla/addons#662
4. For Manifest V3: the Chrome Web Store has a review policy that "Specifically, all logic must be included in the extension's package", but allows for "remote configuration files": https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/mv3/intro/mv3-overview/#remotely-hosted-code

Request

When standardizing the "manifest", also consider any relevant web store factors — i.e., the "API" of the web stores

Web stores can/should be able to have different review policies, but aligning on standard terminology (e.g., "logic") would help simplify debate

@tomayac
Copy link

tomayac commented Jul 31, 2021

+1, it would also massively help if stores agreed on required icon sizes and screenshot dimensions.

@dotproto dotproto changed the title request: consider web store implementation and review policy in standardization process Request: consider extension store implementation and review policy during specification process Aug 20, 2021
@dotproto
Copy link
Member

Considering and discussing these factors seems uncontroversial, but I'm not sure it makes sense to bake them into the specification.

For example, @tomayac highlighted icon size inconsistency across browsers and stores. To my knowledge browsers and stores have preferred sizes for display purposes, but none strictly require any given size. If preferred size icon is not provided, the browser will select the next closest appropriate size and scale the image. For a point of comparison, the Web Application Manifest working draft describes the icons property and algorithm used to load images from this object, but does not specify what sizes are permitted.

I think it may be best to discuss these factors and seek alignment across browsers and stores, but for that information to be documented in a separate report. I think it's also within this group's purview to produce non-specification resources like test suites or tutorials.

@xeenon xeenon added inconsistency Inconsistent behavior across browsers spec clarification Needs clarification when specified labels Sep 2, 2021
@dotproto
Copy link
Member

Agreed that this should be a consideration as we design APIs, but we don't have any specific action items or deliverables here.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
inconsistency Inconsistent behavior across browsers spec clarification Needs clarification when specified
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants