W3C

– DRAFT –
MiniApp CG Call

07 November 2019

Attendees

Present
Angel, berg, chumming, dan_zhou, dbaron, KeithGu, Peipei, Peipei_guo, Qing_An, xfq, xiaoqian, Xueyuan
Regrets
-
Chair
Angel
Scribe
xfq, xfq_, xueyuan

Meeting minutes

CG charter review

<Angel> charter of CG:https://‌w3c.github.io/‌miniapp/‌charter.html

angel: current agenda proposal ^
… for background
… the directions of the CG was discussed during TPAC 2019 Chinese IG F2F
… please let us know if you have any comment for the charter
… I'll send it for review for a 5-6 day review period
… any question?

[silence]

CG projects plan review

angel: the CG has 4 initial projects
… URI scheme, Widget, Application lifecycle and event, as well as Manifest

<Angel> Lifecycle: https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌miniapp/‌issues/‌13

<Angel> URI scheme: https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌miniapp/‌issues/‌12

<Angel> Widget: https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌miniapp/‌issues/‌14

angel: here's the timeline of these projects ^
… let's look at URI scheme

[going through URI scheme]

berg: we will draft an initial version and put it on github

angel: let's look at application lifecycle next
… is Qing An on the call?

[silence]

Angel: let's skip this for now
… anyone from Xiaomi can give an intro of the widget timeline?

https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌miniapp/‌issues/‌14

[going through the widget timeline]

xiaowei: the deadline is Q3 2020 currently
… any comment from the CG participants on that?

angel: let's go with the plan you're comfortable now
… and adjust based on the development status

<xiaoqian> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌miniapp/‌issues/‌15

xiaoqian: Marcos filed an issue re gap analysis of W3C widgets and mini app widgets ^
… could you look into this, xiaowei?

angel: there are two parts in Marcos' issue
… one is the gap analysis
… the other is to update the white paper to include more information
… am I understanding correctly?

xiaoqian: I think just putting the content in Xiaomi's widget document is an option
… of course we can update the white paper too if needed

yingli: we will include the gap analysis of use cases in our widget spec of previous attempts

xiaoqian: sounds good

<Zakim> dbaron, you wanted to mention explainers

<dbaron> https://‌w3ctag.github.io/‌explainers

dbaron: I just wanted to mention the idea of explainers
… sometimes the TAG has a reviewing process
… and an explainer explainer
… I don't mean that you need to write an explainer, but it may help answer questions like Marcos'

angel: any exact suggestion?

dbaron: I don't have any exact suggestion
… but just want to point out that an explainer may be helpful

angel: only for widget, or for other stuff in the CG as well?

dbaron: it can be used when you build something new
… it's useful to write a short explanation

angel: understood, thank you
… anything else we need to discuss re Xiaomi's widget plan?

berg: I agree with David
… it's useful for URI scheme and other activities in the group too

[Qing An joins]

Qing: can I give a brief intro of https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌miniapp/‌issues/‌13
… there are some related work in W3C such as Page Visibility
… we'll look into that

angel: any question on application lifecycle?

Qing: Alibaba volunteers work on this
… anyone who is interested is welcome

berg: Baidu will join

Angel: anyone from Huawei to introduce the Manifest?
… Huawei seems not here, if any of you like to volunteerly work together with Huawei on Manifest, please let me know.
… action for each projects leading company
… please provide your editors' names and email addresses, before 14th Nov.
… you are very welcomed to join all the projects discussion
… we expect the leading company to lead/drive each projects

Berg: there're indeed similar part between widgets and miniapps
… @1

yingli: we need to define the scope
… for example, widget may also contains URI scheme and lifecycle

berg: we need to make the specs modular
… not a giant widget spec

yingli: if there's already a W3C spec, can we just refer to it

xiaoqian: sure
… we can also get in touch with the relavant W3C spec editors
… like Marcos about widget

angel: what Yingli asked is an important question
… we need to ensure that the four project don't do duplicated work
… we can discuss more technical details in future teleconferences

dan_zhou: what's the best way to analysis the difference between the existing technology and other W3C specs?

xiaoqian: you can look at the explainer dbaron just mentioned

dan_zhou: how to ensure that we don't do duplicated work?
… should we collaborate as early as possible?

xiaoqian: I think so

dan_zhou: one potential issue is that the timeline of the projects do not sync with each other

xiaoqian: e.g, if some of your work in URI scheme is related to manifest
… you can ping the manifest editor in a github issue as soon as you publish your draft on github

angel: next teleconference: 9-10am (Beijing, UTC+8) Dec 5 (Thursday)
… any objection?

[silence]

AOB

angel: any other business?
… hearing none, the meeting is adjourned

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by Bert Bos's scribe.perl version 90 (Wed Oct 23 15:26:41 2019 UTC), a reimplementation of David Booth's scribe.perl. See history.