Meeting minutes
Lifecycle
QingAn: propose that we merge https://
… any objections?
Zitao_Wang: +1 to merge
https://github.com/w3c/miniapp-lifecycle/pull/19
QingAn: not urgent
… we can keep it for another month
… I just added some privacy considerations
Zitao_Wang: I agree privacy and security is important
… I want to encourage more people to review this part
… not just for the Lifecycle spec
… also for other WG documents
https://github.com/w3c/miniapp-lifecycle/pull/20
QingAn: we haven't talked to the Mobile Accessibility Task Force
https://github.com/w3c/miniapp-lifecycle/issues/22
QingAn: define a unified interface between miniapp and native
… I want to hear your opinions
Zitao_Wang: I reviewed this issue
… I think it makes sense
… if some developer develops a miniapp but does not have a standardized lifecycle
… it's not good for wide deployment of miniapp standards
… I also want to hear the comments from people who are familiar with existing Web technologies
QingAn: miniapp is not just for "super apps", it's also for operating systems
… I'm not sure this unified interface is for miniapp developers or miniapp vendors
Zitao_Wang: we need to further discuss this
QingAn: I will keep this issue open for now
Manifest
martin: no new PRs
… if there's no objection I think we can merge https://
martin: next is https://
… xfq added a comment
… I made some changes
… unless you have objections I think we can merge this PR
[silence]
martin: we can keep iterate these sections
https://
martin: i think it's important
… it's something we can explore
… IMO we can do it
Zitao_Wang: I think this comment makes sense
… since our goal is to harmonize with PWA
… we can also solicit comments from miniapp vendors
… to see if they agree
martin: if there's no objection we can explore this
Packaging
martin: https://
… editorial changes
… approved by xfq
… unless there are objections we can merge it
https://
martin: comments from xfq
… I made the changes
… unless there are objections we can merge it
https://github.com/w3c/miniapp-packaging/issues/51
martin: I assigned it to me
… will propose a new PR
Addressing
Dan_Zhou: it's a Draft Note now
… we need more public review
https://
xfq: We have three open issues. Please fix them.
Zitao_Wang: the document is currently bilingual, and ideally, like the rest of the WG documents, we can make it monolingual (English-only).
Widget Requirements
xfq: The Acknowledgments section currently has no content
xfq: it's better to fill in some content or remove this section for now.
… The URI in the explainer needs to be updated to conform to the new version of the Addressing spec.
White paper
martin: I added some text
… will add some input
… but we'd better do it when it's in HTML
Zitao_Wang: the illustration looks better now
… I added a 'Implementation, converting tool' section
… xfq, do you think it's ready to be converted to HTML?
xfq: I think so
TPAC
xfq: we also discussed this in the CG meeting
… I hope we can find a place in China to have an offline meeting
QingAn: the time of the TPAC survey almost up
… we need to decide
… before next week
… I think we're unlikely to go to Vancouver
… do you agree?
Zitao_Wang: I agree
QingAn: any other comments?
Zitao_Wang: agree with QingAn's comments
QingAn: if there's no objections i'll fill in the form on behalf of the WG
AOB
xfq: we need to find a way to test the implementation of our specs
Zitao_Wang: agree with xfq, we need to make a plan
xfq: I'll file an issue later
Zitao_Wang: yes, that will help us move forward
<martin> +1 to test suite discussion
canfeng: I wonder if there are any examples from other WGs for testing we can learn from
xfq: yes, the WPT project
canfeng: who maintains this project?
xfq: browser vendors, the W3C members
xiaoqian: xfq can give a 5-10 min talk to introduce wpt next month
Zitao_Wang: next meeting, April 28
<martin> +1 Apr 28