W3C

– DRAFT –
MiniApps CG Monthly TeleConf

19 August 2021

Attendees

Present
Bingqing_Zhou, Canfeng_Chen, Changhao_Liang, Dan_Zhou, martin, QingAn, Tengyuan_Zhang, ThomasSteiner, xfq, xiaoqian, yanyumeng, Yongjing_Zhang, Zitao_Wang
Regrets
-
Chair
QingAn
Scribe
xfq, xiaoqian

Meeting minutes

UI component

https://github.com/w3c/miniapp-components/issues/2

[Debug audio issues]

QingAn: whether this is within the scope of MiniApps?

Zitao_Wang: I agree with the comment that we should be harmonise with the other existing work in W3C

Zitao_Wang: analyzed MVVM-based frameworks
… our proposal is still early draft
… miniapp components have overlaps with HTML, but they are different, so we need to have a document listing the differences
… thus the document
… working on use cases
… still a lot need to be done
… case by case analysis for each component
… we need to provide guidance to the developers
… we will look into the gap between this proposal and the current W3C community work
… the goal is to support the current w3c work and let it be harmonised with MiniApps

QingAn: is it a CG draft?

xfq: yes

QingAn: so there is not much relationship with the working group charter at this stage

Dan_Zhou: our goal is to let the MiniApps vendors to have a unified implementation
… so it's important to list the requirements and use cases of all components
… so we need this UI component draft
… and then start thinking about how to harmonise with the WebApp UI components

<tomayac> https://github.com/openui/open-ui

tomayac: this is exactly my opinion too

tomayac: the miniapp community have experience building UI components

tomayac: there's an Open UI group
… but please avoid developing HTML UI Components and reinventing HTML
… the sharing the requirement will be valuable

<tomayac> Example component definition: https://open-ui.org/components/select

Zitao_Wang: agree with tomayac
… Open UI provided some good examples
… I would like to participate in their work
… Open UI still has gaps with miniapp's requirements
… we should make it clear in our CG draft
… provide the capacity to MiniApp and help the MiniApp developers
… that's what we want in the CG

Zitao_Wang: next step, call for volunteers
… help to optimise the requirement descriptions and use cases
… keep the conversation with the other groups in UI components
… provide a more clear structure for this document

Zitao_Wang: the work is still in the CG

Action: Zitao to reply to the issue and clarify the work is in the CG, not in the charter of the WG. And continue working on the requirements and use cases.

MiniApp for IoT pull request

https://github.com/w3c/miniapp-iot/pull/1

QingAn: would like to create a new state in the lifecycle for IoT
… also a callback function
… similar to the MiniApp Page Lifecycle

https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/blob/main/USE-CASES/device-lifecycle.md

QingAn: need to look at the WoT proposals

xfq: we can ask for feedback from the WoT folks
… any other comments?

martin: I raised an issue about lifecycle
… including examples and use cases
… I'll review the pull request

Tools for converting standard to existing implementations

https://github.com/w3c/miniapp/issues/170

Zitao_Wang: I'd like to call for participation to develop a few tools to convert the proposals into vendor implementation specs
… for the MiniApp industry
… including demo tools
… to verify the feasibility of the standards
… enable the cross-platform deployment of the MiniApps
… give developers confident to use standards
… early idea
… converting the manifest.json file
… would like to call for volunteers to work with me
… we can have a session to show a demo in TPAC 2021

Dan_Zhou: I think different vendors should use the same name

Zitao_Wang: the goal is to get rid of these platform-specific names
… but they already exist

xfq: it is useful to convert the vendor-specific version to the new standardised version

xfq: it is also useful to convert the standardised version to the vendor-specific version in some cases

Zitao_Wang: standard manifest can be translated into vendor-specific ones
… vendor-specific manifest should be allowed to translated into the standard one

martin: I think this is a valid use case

Canfeng_Chen: interesting idea
… but I'm think the relationship with the standards
… will it bring in new standards?

Zitao_Wang: no, this is the roadmap
… just want to help the CG and the WG to get closer to the industry
… if it can generate potential idea
… of course we can take it into the CG

Canfeng_Chen: now that we have two FPWDs
… I still don't know how mature the work is
… when can the developers use these standards

Zitao_Wang: still early work
… we can start with those already released standards
… to make it cross-platform
… to help developers work on standardised MiniApps ASAP

QingAn: Manifest.json is just a starting point, but not enough to develop a MiniApp, right?

Zitao_Wang: yes, just a demo
… we can complete the tool as the specs get more mature

QingAn: would like to include lifecycle
… but the .json files are not enough

Zitao_Wang: indeed
… that's why I'm calling for volunteers

QingAn: good idea, I support it

martin: good for developers and vendors

Yongjing_Zhang: I'd suggest people interested in this proposal have more offline discussion
… to make a timeline, how much we can do before TPAC

Next meeting

QingAn: how about 16 Sep?

tomayac & xfq: LGTM

[adjourned]

Summary of action items

  1. Zitao to reply to the issue and clarify the work is in the CG, not in the charter of the WG. And continue working on the requirements and use cases.
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 147 (Thu Jun 24 22:21:39 2021 UTC).