Meeting minutes
Lifecycle
QingAn: discussion about the MiniApp origin
QingAn: not specific to the Lifecycle spec
QingAn: the MiniApp origin is not the same as the web origin
… more like a business policy of MiniApp vendors
… out of scope for this group
… no big update to the spec itself
Manifest
https://
martin: reviewing the CSP issue ^
… somewhat related to the origin topic you mentioned just now
https://
martin: editorial update ^
… approved by xfq
… if there's no objection we can merge it
https://
martin: I updated the explainer ^
… not only 2 members
… I included the members we introduced a while ago
… we can have another round of review and we can merge this PR
… related to #30 and #48
… about the CSP issue, so far I haven't received any comments
Consider consolidating MiniApp's app_id with Web App Manifest's id member
martin: this issue was opened by tomayac
martin: I think we can align with WAM
… feel free to comment
QingAn: is this related to the origin?
martin: not really
QingAn: the id in WAM uses URL
… we need to consult the MiniApp vendors whether it's possible
… do you think it's feasible, martin?
martin: I think we can use it
QingAn: we need to see whether it affects the impls
martin: I agree with you that we should continue the discussion
xiaoqian: there's a Chinese company called Dingdao, working on PWAs
https://
xiaoqian: they filed an issue ^
… is it something we want to do for MiniApp Manifest?
… should we invite the engineers from Dingdao to talk about their vision for PWA?
… to see whether we have any ideas about hybrid apps
… I think we already have a version member in the MiniApp manifest
… we need to look at if the requirements are the same
… if the requirements are the same we should support his idea
martin: I will comment
<xiaoqian> martin++
xiaoqian: thank you, martin
Packaging
https://
martin: cleaned up the RFC 2119 terms
… nothing affecting the content
QingAn: it's an editorial change?
martin: yes
QingAn: in this case, I'm OK with it
martin: will work on https://
xfq: Are we ready to start the wide review?
martin: I think it's solid, unless other MiniApp vendors disagree
xiaoqian: we should also ask the digital publishing groups
… because they're interested
martin: yeah
QingAn: about Manifest and Lifecycle
… what's the next step?
<martin> +1 to early reviews of the specs
xfq: getting early and wide review of a document is very important
QingAn: agreed
https://
xiaoqian: according to the charter we should move to PR in Q3 2022
… we need to have at least 2 independent implementations for each feature
QingAn: we're already behind schedule for CR
xiaoqian: we need to close the normative issues before we move to CR
… wide review is also required
martin: we should also start creating a test suite as soon as possible
xiaoqian: we should also look at the Web App Manifest spec to see if we can share some test cases
martin: I'll look into this
xiaoqian: since tomayac is here, I wonder whether he can share how the Web App Manifest spec is tested
tomayac: I'm not a testing expert
… there's wpt, but I'm personally not involved
xiaoqian: thank you
<tomayac> This is the (open) Issue for creating a test suite: https://
Widget
xiaoping: two modificatoins
… removed the Acknowledgments section
… and updated the URI in the explainer
… both PR have been merged
QingAn: next step for widgets?
xiaoping: Xiaomi is drafting a widget spec
White paper 2022
QingAn: I think it's mature enough to publish
https://
<martin> +1 to publish
<xiaoqian> +1
QingAn: we can send an email to the group since not all group members are here
xiaoqian: should we add a version number to it?
QingAn: good idea to add a year
… MiniApp Standardization White Paper 2022?
xiaoqian: looks good to me
QingAn: we may not update it next year
… if we use the year someone may think it's out of date
… I prefer use something like v2.0
martin: works for me
QingAn: should we issue a CfC?
xfq: it's a Note, so we can just tpublish it
xiaoqian: we can publish it and announce it to the group
AOB
QingAn: next meeting on May 26?
<martin> +1 May 26