Meeting minutes
Possible solution for MiniApp URL
https://github.com/w3c/miniapp/issues/34#issuecomment-704261867
https://github.com/w3c/miniapp/issues/130
Fuqiao: W3C team has been doing some research on URL
… with the context of MiniApp, including early identification of a miniapp package and deep linking
… Yves Lafon thinks both cases apply HTTP URL scheme
… in issue #34, it is through media types and Universal Links / App Links
… he filed an issue about the charter to clarify
angel: will Baidu be happy with this finding?
tengyuan: yes, agree
angel: shall we leave the current wording in the Charter as it is?
xfq: yves has some suggestion, to remove the ref to the DID WG
… since it's not the case now
… and to rename the spec to MiniApp Addressing
angel: any objections?
<tomayac> +1 for removal of DID
Resolution: remove the ref of DID and update the charter
Action: xfq to update the charter with Yves
Open issues and pull requests on the draft WG charter
angel: next is the review result and open issues
<angel> https://github.com/w3c/miniapp/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Acharter
angel: one PR and 7 open issues
<angel> https://github.com/w3c/miniapp/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+label%3Acharter
https://github.com/w3c/miniapp/issues/132
plh: major difference, when CfE, the RF license is on the draft at the end of the CfE
… don't need to wait for years to get the RF license
angel: any objection on #132?
Resolution: accept suggestion in #132
https://github.com/w3c/miniapp/issues/128
yongjing: agree, thought we already done it
xfq: current charter says WebApps Manifest is a ref, the issue is to make it clear
angel: will it make things complicate?
plh: it's good to sync with the WebApps WG
angel: how can we avoid objection of the wording?
plh: the editors are on board with the plan... they will like to look at what we are doing
yongjing: think it's ok to update the wording
Martin: the PR you made is aligned with the plan
Resolution: accept #128
https://github.com/w3c/miniapp/issues/79
angel: an old one, we had discussions and updated the charter
… have we resolved the problem?
xfq: not yet...
… in our previous discussion, we proposed only mention UI components
… the current charter include components and APIs without a scope
… we should restrict the scope
<angel> "MiniApp UI components, component-associated APIs, and a page layout template mechanism that would enhance the interoperability among different MiniApp platforms. Other components and APIs may be included by rechartering the WG scope as the incubation result from the MiniApp Community Group. "
^^ yongjing's proposal
plh: what does it by other component?
xfq: a component doesn't have to be an UI component
yongjing: yep, can be background, payment
… there were some examples in the White Paper that are not about UI
… if in the future we are going to work on non-UI components, we can recharter
plh: shall we list the CSS WG in the coordination?
yongjing: yes, I'm open to it
angel: sam has some concern about the definition
plh: hard to define component in the charter
… dont think we can be more precise than this
<tomayac> More relevant than the CSS WG seems the Web Platform Working Group. It's already looped in I assume.
angel: ok, let's leave Sam's question open for now
<tomayac> As the authors of https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/
https://github.com/w3c/miniapp/issues/76
angel: more an issue of operation
xfq: it was in the out of scope section
… we remove it but still it's not define in the scope
<tomayac> If an objective is to have interoperable (web) components, then I think we need the group to be aware
<tomayac> WebApps or WebPlat, FWIW (thanks, xiaoqian)
yongjing: we removed it because it's more important to describe things in the scope than those out of scope
angel, plh: agree
Action: angel to reply to Sam #76
https://github.com/w3c/miniapp/issues/75
angel: yongjing has done some researches
plh: yves also has done some researching
Action: plh to ask yves to comment on #75
https://github.com/w3c/miniapp/issues/60
xfq: think we should close this issue until we have some implementation experience
https://github.com/w3c/miniapp/pull/129
angel: cooperation on lifecycle
xfq: the intent is to provide a mapping to the current W3C works, especially the Service Worker WG
Anqing: "existing Web specifications" isn't clear enough, would be good to list the examples
xfq: it can happen the MiniApp lifecycle defines some events that doesn't exist in other web specs
Anqing: the existing specs, only including RECs or all the drafts?
xfq: all the drafts
angel: good to keep it open to other possibilities
Anqing: good to leave flexibility
Action: xfq to update #129
Security and privacy
<angel> https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues/183
<xfq> https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues/183#issuecomment-702389104
angel: one last issue from the horizontal review
… is Sam happy with xfq's explanation?
wseltzer: not speaking for Sam...
… further discussion sounds like a good way forward
… MiniApp solution should learn for experiences from the Sec and Privacy, so that we can give the users seamless experience of the other part of Web Platform
… at this stage, we dont expect the group to identify solutions for all the sec and privacy issues
… but we hope to keep a long term conversation
Resolution: keep talking to the PING and the Sec groups in the future
Timeline
plh: the plan is to finish the HR-review by the end of October send for W3M and Director review in early November, AC review mid-November so that we can be able to launch the group by the end of the year
angel: hope to avoid the Christmas vacation, New Year vacation, and the Spring Festival
TPAC breakout session
angel: there is already one learning session from Thomas, do the group want another one?
<tomayac> I think there should be one, since mine won't focus on the standardization efforts
tomayac: my session will be focusing on what Web Dev can learn from the MiniApp user experience
<tomayac> +1
<vzasadnyy> +1
<QingAn> +1
<angel> +1
<Yongjing> +1
<xfq> https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2020/SessionIdeas
<tomayac> https://www.w3.org/2020/10/TPAC/public-breakouts.html
<xfq> https://www.w3.org/2020/10/TPAC/breakout-schedule.html
2pm UTC
Resolution: let's have a breakout session!
plh: we should be careful presenting the current drafts, especially the URI
… will it help to ask Yves and xfq to present their finding?
angel: yes
xfq: tomayac's breakout session will also help people to understand MiniApp
plh: deadline to apply for a breakout is 19 Oct
AOB
xiaoqian: shall we have one group meeting for incubation in the CG, another one for the specs in the WG?
yongjing: for the IPR concern, good to separate the meetings
angel: let's wait when the WG have launched
angel: next meeting?
… 12 Nov same time, 12 UTC
[adjourned]