Meeting minutes
Lifecycle
QingAn: trying to solve the issues by PING
… based on additional comments from Zitao_Wang and Dan_Zhou
… I made some changes
… hopefully we can get some consensus from today's meeting
https://github.com/w3c/miniapp-lifecycle/pull/33
[QingAn describes the PR]
Dan_Zhou: there's global lifecycle and page lifecycle in MiniApps
QingAn: how about adding a separate section to show the example code?
… it can include global and page lifecycle
Dan_Zhou: sounds good to me
QingAn: I'll work on it
https://github.com/w3c/miniapp-lifecycle/issues/35
martin: I commented on the issue today
… Following the explainer, we included a destroy event for marking when the app is removed from the system. We can include this state (destroyed/unloaded) but also recommending that user agents should clean the resources after meeting some criteria (time spent in background or resources loaded in memory).
[martin explains the comment]
Dan_Zhou: MiniApps have an unload lifecycle event
… developers need it
QingAn: dan and martin prefer to specify the unload event
… if there's no objections, I'll move forward
Zitao_Wang: is it optional?
QingAn: I'd like to add it
Zitao_Wang: the devs can choose whether to use it or not
Manifest
<martin> 3 PRs (https://
<martin> https://
<Github> https://
martin: already approved by xfq
… if there's no comments, I think we can merge this
<martin> #59 Clarification of differences with Web app manifest (editorial note) https://
<Github> https://
[silence]
<Github> https://
martin: this is for the privacy review
… differences between web app manifest and miniapp manifest
… editorial changes
Zitao_Wang: I reviewed this
… I think it's good
<martin> #60 Privacy clarifications while checking app_id Suggestion by privacy review to verify integrity of the app. Added a generic text that links to the digital signatures included in the ZIP container that could help to guarantee the trust chain. https://
<Github> https://
martin: if there's no objection, I'll merge it
<Github> https://
martin: this is also from the privacy review
… any comment, or any idea about whether we should modify the constraints?
Dan_Zhou: I have comments on the case folding issue
… in some dev practise I found some system is case-insensitive
… this can cause some bug in some developer's systems
martin: the id is for identifying a miniapp
Dan_Zhou: I'll give you some examples
… I'll comment on the issue
<martin> #9 Proprietary extensions of the manifest (https://
<Github> https://
martin: this is an old issue
… I added a proposal
… similar to web app manifest
… I don't know if you like this idea, but I think this is a simple solution
… if ther's no objection, I can close this issue and we can edit the wiki, and add links to it
<martin> #43 Consider consolidating MiniApp's app_id with Web App Manifest's id member (https://
<Github> https://
martin: I raised some comments in the w3c/manifest repo
… they're expecting the id to be a URI
… any comments on this?
… the app_id is not a URI
Zitao_Wang: I agree this is the main difference of miniapp's app_id and web app's id
<martin> This is the discussion with PWA Manifest: https://
<martin> #56 What sessions are? (https://
<Github> https://
<Github> https://
martin: we need to clarify what is a session
… this is covered in the discussion about the Lifecycle
… once we have the new state, I'll clarify this
… other issues are still pending
Packaging
<martin> One pull request after privacy review #63 (https://
<Github> https://
martin: it's about file names within the package
… the guidance is from the i18n WG
… I mentioned the guidance from i18n WG
<martin> This would close issue #61 (https://
<Github> https://
martin: no big changes
xfq: I think we can merge this
<martin> New issue opened this week regarding the TAG review: https://
martin: this is something we need to discuss
… we don't define any specific mechanism for digital signatures
… we should clarify how to perserve the origin
… I propose that we have a meeting with the wpack folks
… CBOR vs zip
… any comments on this?
Zitao_Wang: maybe other people don't have time to review this yet
… maybe we can find a way to address this issue
… thank you for introducing this
Dan_Zhou: I need to read this after the meeting
Addressing
Dan_Zhou: no progress
… I'll update the explainer
Rechartering the WG
Dan_Zhou: I think we should add widget spec to 'other deliverables', but xfq said it should be a normative deliverable
Zitao_Wang: what do you think, Xiaoping_Zhao?
Xiaoping_Zhao: normative deliverable
Zitao_Wang: you need to have a relatively mature draft
Xiaoping_Zhao: ok
Zitao_Wang: about UI component
… martin, do you think we can add some work about UI component in the WG charter?
martin: I'll do some work this week and next week
White Paper
https://
<martin> A table with the comparison of MiniApp Components: https://
Zitao_Wang: I think it's very cool
… thank you
[martin introduces the PR]
<martin> https://
martin: some clarification of the text
… this is from July
… if there's no comments, we can merge this
AOB
martin: events in Europe
… I had some discussions with the W3C Spanish chapter
… they're interested in MiniApps, PWAs, and W3C in general
… to organise an event about MiniApps and other Web technologies
… the event is in Spanish, but can include some sessions in English
… the discussions with them is positive
… we can discuss this internally
… I'll share more information with you this week
… to include more people in the group
Next meeting, November 24