Meeting minutes
Deliverables status review
Lifecycle
QingAn: currently no main update
… one question
… We asked the TAG to review, did they respond?
https://
https://
xfq: the TAG review comments were sent before the WG was created
xfq: After that we updated the spec
xfq: They asked some questions, such as what is "worker"
… need to ask them if there are any other comments
… When do you think we can start requesting security, privacy, i18n, and a11y reviews?
QingAn: Do we have to wait for the TAG review to end before starting other reviews?
xfq: No, these reviews can be done in parallel
[discuss the wide review process]
QingAn: I plan to look at the issues and update the WebIDL
… then we can consider request wide review from the other groups
Manifest
Wenli_Zhang: next, Manifest?
Yongjing_Zhang: not much update
Packaging
Wenli_Zhang: Packaging?
https://
martin: I opened a pull request this week
… mostly editorial
… we have an i18n dir
… would like to make it recommended instead of mandatory
… feedback is welcome
… align with HTML extensions
… using the standard terminologies
… more details added for conformance
… I raised an issue today
… the pull has been reviewed, plan to merge it
… the proposal is waiting for feedback
… issue #2 about components
… the proposal is about splitting the spec to have an independent document for content
… similar approach in the EPUB specification
… please take a look at issue #30 and share your opinion
<martin> this is the issue: https://
xfq: +1
Tengyuan_Zhang: agree with Martin
… there was a paragraph about this issue
… important discussion
martin: it's not included in the current WG charter
… we should start this in the CG, right?
xfq: I think so
xiaoqian: it's OK to split a spec into two
xiaoqian: suggest a CfC in the group
martin: it's in the scope of the current charter
angel: +1
<martin> https://
Yongjing_Zhang: is it ok to merge the pull request?
[no objection]
Manifest
Zitao_Wang: I sent a PR last month about Manifest
… any comment from the WG?
… if no, would like to merge it
https://
xfq: there was a comment from @awentzel
Zitao_Wang: it can be merge into different types of apps
… different devices
Aaron_Wentzel: need to know more about MiniApps
… any recommendation about the tech architecture?
… what is missing in PWAs that prevent us from doing so?
xfq: First, these new members are optional.
xfq: My understanding is that the miniapp platform can support various device types and screen sizes
… but the miniapp itself may not necessarily be adapted to all device types
… this metadata provides such information
Aaron_Wentzel: so that metadata can be @@?
Yongjing_Zhang: it's also related to the device APIs
… some APIs are lack of support
martin: it's important to have this metadata for the marketplaces/UA to understand better the potential audience
Addressing
Wenli_Zhang: next, Addressing
… Dan is not here, maybe next time
Manifest
Zitao_Wang: back to the PR of the Manifest, shall we merge it?
xfq: we should also update the JSON schema and explainer
Zitao_Wang: happy to help
Widget
Wenli_Zhang: Widget...
xfq: no update
xfq: when will be a good time to publish a FPWD of Packaging?
martin: once we make a decision of the splitting, we should be ready to publish a WD
… others will be editorial issues
White Paper
xfq: we have decided to take over the White Paper
… there are some open issues
… any volunteers to update the White Paper?
angel: the former editors still in this WG can make a TF
martin: happy to join the TF and help the work
Zitao_Wang: what will be our goal to update the White Paper?
… fix issues or rewrite it?
xfq: some editors are not in the WG, we may need to update the editors list
angel: let's give the group one month to review the work and we can discuss the next step int the next meeting
AOB
Wenli_Zhang: Next WG meeting?
angel: 26 Aug?
<martin> +1 to 26 Aug
angel: in our next meeting, we may want to talk to the CG to see shall we have one TPAC meeting for both the CG and WG or two separated meetings
[adjourned]