Meeting minutes
UI Components
[Zitao shares his screen]
Zitao_Wang: we have solicited feedback
… would like to reuse existing standards in W3C
… martin had some comments
… maybe we can reuse web components
… I reviewed martin's comments and I think it makes sense
… think we should move in this direction
… want to discuss the scope and method with the CG and WG
… want to hear feedback from other vendors
https://
martin: The challenges are not limited to these, but here are the more important challenges
… we should adopt the proposals in the Open UI CG or jump into their discussions
… another important challenge is that there is overlap with existing html elements
… some of them are the same, like div
… If they are really different, the elements could extend the HTML elements using inheritance
… reuse the attributes and behavior of the existing html elements
… if they are the same, just adopt HTML
… basic MiniApp components with a minimum set of non-standard attributes like disable, focusable, etc.
… we can create of a basic, essential MiniappElement that extends the HTMLElement with the specific requirements
… as the base of all elements
… the fourth challenge, MiniApp events that are similar to existing standard ones
… we should adopt the existing standards if we can
… New events on the MiniApp components (e.g., longpress, swipe…)
… somewhat controversial
… I think we can document the use cases to see if they're really necessary
… if so, we can define new CustomEvents based on the standard DOM interfaces
… so far we don't have specific features for accessibility in MiniApp components
… like alt text for images
… in this case we adopt existing HTML/CSS/DOM standards
… because they already covered a11y features
… please feel free to comment
… we can iterate this
Zitao_Wang: I think we want to discuss Open UI and other related work
… need to make the gaps and challenges clearer
… want to call for participation from other miniapp vendors
Qing_An: today in the WG we have three specs in development
… I think the UI Components work is very essential
… personally I'm in favor of the direction
… we also need to consider the APIs
… gap analysis on miniapp APIs and web APIs
… we can incubate the UI Components work in the CG
Zitao_Wang: I solicited feedbak from developers
… they think our current work in the WG is good, but not enough
<martin> +1 to analyze the MiniApp APIs/WebAPIs similarities
Zitao_Wang: standardized UI Components and APIs are useful
… we can update our white paper
Qing_An: I agree
… any further comment on UI Components?
… we can continue the discussion in the GitHub issue
Zitao_Wang: ok
Widget
Canfeng_Chen: we have further updates on the widget requirement
https://
Canfeng_Chen: we have started writing an explainer
… it's still a draft
… contains three parts
… 1. explain what is a widget
… @@
… hope to upload an initial draft of widget spec before the next meeting
Qing_An: we can look at it before the next meeting
Qing_An: are we satisfied with https://
… dan has expressed her support
<QingAn> +1
Zitao_Wang: +1
<martin> +1
<xfq> +1
xfq: Is this document mature? Can it be published as a note?
<QingAn> https://
Canfeng_Chen: @@
Dan_Zhou: @@
Dan_Zhou: I think https://
Next CG Teleconference
<martin> +1 Jan 13
Next CG Teleconference: Jan 13
Qing_An: we will switch to the WG meeting after the break
[10min break]
Lifecycle
Zitao_Wang: WG meeting
… Lifecycle
Qing_An: no big update for Lifecycle
… will try to share more in the next meeting
Manifest
Zitao_Wang: Manifest
martin: a few changes
… some comments from xfq
… regarding the examples
… I fixed the issue raised by xfq
… we also need to consider the URL story in the future
… feel free to comment
Packaging
Zitao_Wang: Packaging
… xfq filed https://
… we want to discuss whether we need to document this in the Packaging spec
… or we need to define it in a seperate document?
martin: yes, it's something we need to discuss
Zitao_Wang: for sub-packaging we need to document it
… for streaming, it's another format
… do we want to document it in the packaing spec or another spec
martin: it may affect the future of the packaging spec
Dan_Zhou: I suggest that we put streaming and sub-packaging in the Packaging spec
… I can ask Tengyuan to help the streaming part
Zitao_Wang: great
<martin> We really appreciate as much input as possible, thanks!
Addressing
Zitao_Wang: Addressing
https://
Dan_Zhou: I have answered Yongjing's question
… comments welcome
Zitao_Wang: I noticed that you mentioned why miniapp:// is introduced, but you did not mention platform://
… maybe you can explain why you designed the URL like this
Dan_Zhou: I'm not sure the deep linking technology can appear in a W3C note
… need your help
Zitao_Wang: encourage folks to help Dan revise the draft
… this spec is impoartant for miniapps standardization
Widget Requirements
Zitao_Wang: Widget
… anything else, Canfeng?
Canfeng_Chen: nothing for Widget
… can we discuss white paper maintenance?
Zitao_Wang: it's the next agenda item
White paper maintenance
Zitao_Wang: white paper
https://
[xfq shares his screen]
xfq: the editors are currently writing it in Tencent Docs
xfq: when the document is mature enough, I will convert the new document into a pull request to seek feedback from more people in the group
Zitao_Wang: maybe we can add miniapp API
Canfeng_Chen: in the upcoming widget spec we will write some concrete API proposals related to widget
[qing introduces his changes]
Qing_An: miniapps for IoT
… miniapps for TV
… if you think it needs more content, please let me know
Zitao_Wang: we can have 1-2 weeks to review this
Qing_An: Lifecycle
Canfeng_Chen: I updated the widget part
… it is currently in a mixed state of Chinese and English
… will translate into English later
… in the first paragraph I described the widget requirements document
… in the second paragraph I gave a very very brief introduction of the widget spec
… it's the first time I get involded in a white paper work in W3C
… advice needed
… any open issues against the white paper?
xfq: https://
Canfeng_Chen: when we complete the widget spec we can write more next year
Next WG Meeting
Zitao_Wang: next meeting time
… WG/CG joint meeting?
… Jan 27 is too close to the Spring Festival
Canfeng_Chen: I prefer separate meetings
… What about Jan 20?
Qing_An: fine by me
<martin> +1 Jan 20
AOB
martin: will include a section about accessibility for the manifest and packaging specs
Zitao_Wang: joint meeting with a11y?
xfq: Mobile Accessibility Task Force cancelled their weekly meetings for several weeks
xfq: I don't think we're able to meet with them by the end of the year
xfq: But we don't have to wait for them to start our wide review
xfq: First, the Mobile Accessibility Task Force is not responsible for the a11y review. The Accessible Platform Architectures (APA) Working Group is responsible for that.
xfq: Second, our current work items in the WG are relatively low-level
Zitao_Wang: we need to add the accessibility, security, and priviacy sections to our specs
… does the WG think we can add these sections before the next meeting?
martin: I can add them, but I think we have gaps in accessibility
<martin> +1 to early review
xfq: getting early review of our documents is very important
Canfeng_Chen: Yinli said https://
… other "plan" issues were also closed