– DRAFT –
MiniApp Standardization in W3C

angel: welcome everyone to join miniapp breakout session

[lost Angel]

<xfq> https://w3c.github.io/miniapp/charters/wg-2020.html

angel: miniapp cg work on charter
… we try to create WG of miniapp
… anqing will talk about miniapp lifecycle
… lifecycle doc including lifecycle events
… at first we talked with WICG and we found there are some gaps in miniapp and web
… so we try enhance the lifecycle
… we work out a doc called miniapp lifecycle

<xfq> https://github.com/w3c/miniapp/issues/34

zhoudan: I am from baidu
… we seek the URI of miniapp address in W3C
… we agree use http link to contain some features

<xfq> flow chart: https://github.com/w3c/miniapp/issues/34#issuecomment-636041924

zhoudan: we except that instead of a centralized service.
… welcome feedback

yongjing: short introduction manifest and package
… manifest define the miniapp metadata
… like version control, name etc
… after discussion with webapp manifest, we make a desicion to draft spec as extension of web app manifest
… we welcome feedback
… package try to format miniapp
… scribe, layouts, config
… those should pack together
… signature for security
… a11y still in consideration

angel: miniapp WG charter will go into review in early Nov

fuqiao: Q&A section will not be recorded, simultaneous interpretation can be enabled in zoom
… any question?

Rob: from Microsoft
… how miniapp related with existing web standard, such as WPACK, there are several standard in W3C

<xfq> https://github.com/w3c/miniapp/issues/75

yongjing: we have related discussion with them who work on package, we did gap analysis

<tomayac> There is an FAQ around the standardization efforts: https://github.com/w3c/miniapp/issues/109

yongjing: wpack assumes http exchanges
… MiniApps has local resources
… there could be online exchanges when a MiniApp is running

yongjing: we also did analysis for widget, we can not simply to reuse them
… I can explain very quick
… For example, they're using XML based signature technology. that may not be suitable for the modern solution. then maybe the technologies can be a kind of combined or reuse by miniapp
… we would like to see possible coordination

Rob: I would just ask that we continue to keep the WPACK option open because
… we could Have a single little packaging mechanism than two or three different.

yongjing: we can keep look for possibilities

Angel: fuqiao, could you share more backgrounds of miniapp?
… this is a good opportunity to show our work to rest of WG and people

fuqiao: Chinese IG started to look into miniapp last year, and developed miniapp white paper
… and miniapp CG set up to do the reach on manifest, package, widget and lifecyle
… current, propose timeline.
… we start the W3C review
… hope review could finish by this year

<xfq> https://goo.gle/learning-from-mini-apps

<tomayac> Thanks for the shoutout 😊

fuqiao: miniapp itself, tomayac did a great introduction
… see the link

plh: we have browser industries and miniapp industry
… we should learn from each other

<PEConn> I'm sorry if this has already been addressed (I missed the first part of the meeting), but do we see any appetite for super apps to use these standards? It seems that mini-app lock in is a benefit for them.

angel: in TPAC 2019 Chinese IG F2F we made it clear that we only move a proposal to WG when there's enough support from miniapp vendors
… We are trying to move the work ahead, with the support of the community
… Any comments?

[PEConn question on IRC]

<Rob> Let's just be very careful that we don't bifurcate the web. There is so much overlap here with existing and proposed general web standards. I understand that there is a challenge in aligning the mini-app industry and the web but I really don't want to see two implementations of many web standards. That's really going to cause issues for developers and user experience.

<PEConn> thanks for your answer!

angel: We are confident that we will get implementations

yongjing: There are several MiniApp implementations at different levels
… super apps, and other platforms will support miniApps
… can freely exchange, and grow based on the standard

[xfq commenting Rob's question]

xfq: There are several issues/PR to align the current work with the existing W3C activities
… privacy, i18n, accessibility
… The CG has already requested review and is considering the comments

xfq: any other comments?

plh: My motivation is to remove friction for developers
… The idea is to code once and run in any platform
… So, we should minimize the differences between platforms

xfq: more comments?
… adjourned

xfq: Thanks Thomas for your presentation. Thanks all for your participation

rssagent, make minutes