Meeting minutes
Testing
[Zitao shares his screen]
Zitao_Wang: we have developed several WG documents
… to advance to Proposed Recommendation, each specification must have two independent implementations of all defined features
… we can incubate an open source testing project
… called W3C MiniApps Platform Test
… W3C also has some existing testing projects, like wpt
https://
Zitao_Wang: we set up this to discuss testing-related issues ^
Zitao_Wang: we discussed testing in September's TPAC meeting
… most people support setting up a formal testing project
… it can help call for more participation
… so I prepared this set of slides
… before this, we need to discuss the community, project name, goal, members, functions, milestones, etc. of this project
… possible home for the testing project: Mulan, Open Atom Foundation, OW2
… Mulan is an open source community in China for incubating small- and medium-sized projects using GitHub/Gitee to host code
… naming: 芥子 (mustard) or MiniApps-platform-tests
… members: WG members and other interested orgs and individuals
… I'm no expert on the license
… would like to discuss with you
… I'll share the slides with you
martin_: I think it's a good idea
… it would also be useful to have a validator/checker, like the HTML/CSS/RDF validator/checker
Zitao_Wang: I like this final goal
… if we can provide this validator, it can help the developers develop their projects
… nothing is decided yet, want to discuss it with you
Dan_Zhou: I don't know whether we should vote on the current options, or add other options
Zitao_Wang: I'd like to solicit more comments
… maybe file a GitHub issue to solicit comments
Dan_Zhou: OK
Lifecycle
https://github.com/w3c/miniapp-lifecycle/issues/31
QingAn: I sent a PR
https://
QingAn: this is a simple one
… if there's no objections, I think we can merge this
https://github.com/w3c/miniapp-lifecycle/issues/30
QingAn: I discussed this with @pes10k
… @pes10k suggested that we also need to define one more more Event types that get propagated when these events are triggered
… I'm not sure whether we should define this in our spec
Dan_Zhou: I think it's somewhat different from events on the web
… the scope is not only for window
… I'm not sure if we can just extend the Event interface
QingAn: since this is not a blocking issue, I think just defining EventHandler is ok for now
Zitao_Wang: I agree with QingAn
… maybe we cannot use the Event interface directly
QingAn: I'll reply to @pes10k
… and move forward
… I'll submit a PR for #35 in one or two weeks
<Github> https://
Dan_Zhou: I think we can merge https://
Manifest
https://github.com/w3c/miniapp-manifest/issues/56
martin: this is related to the PING review
[martin introduces the various implementations]
martin_: should I add a new section on when a miniapp is destroyed?
… this is an open question
Zitao_Wang: I think some implementations may have some differences on this
… maybe we can make this an optional event
martin_: thank you
… if you have concrete comments, please comment on the issue
… I think we should at least add a note on how miniapp implementations handle this
QingAn: I think this is related to Lifecycle as well
… I'm working on a PR
… about the naming of this event, should it be 'destroy' or 'unload'
… for me, 'unload' would be easier to understand
martin_: I don't have a preference
… the most important thing is being consistent
… any other comments?
Packaging
https://github.com/w3c/miniapp-packaging/issues/62
martin_: one of their recommendations is to include information on how to handle manage storage
… if you have anything in mind, please let me know
… on how you delete the user information in the system
… do you have any information?
Dan_Zhou: I need to collect some information
https://github.com/w3c/miniapp-packaging/issues/64
martin_: this is a very important issue
… the TAG reviewed our spec
… I think we need to have a discussion with them
… about how we can handle this problem
… I would be glad to arrange this meeting
… any suggestions?
Zitao_Wang: most WG members implement it using zip
… but I know some other vendors use non-zip formats
xfq: we can discuss it within the WG before discussing with the TAG or Web Bundles folks
Addressing
Dan_Zhou: no progress
Widget
[Xiaoping shares his screen about the scope of the widget work]
[Discuss the new charter draft https://
xiaoping: where should we add the widget spec to the charter?
xfq: if there's consensus, I can add it to the Normative Specifications section
Zitao_Wang: maybe we can find a better way to describe the work
xiaoping: we'll come up with a better way to describe this
Components
https://github.com/w3c/miniapp-components/pull/6
https://
martin_: this is an outline
[martin introduces the PR]
martin_: open to comments
… I also raised https://
… the work is not for replacing the Web Component mechanisms
https://github.com/w3c/miniapp-components/pull/5
martin_: if there's no comments, I would like to merge this
AOB
Next meeting, December 22