Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[wg/miniapps] Rechartering MiniApps Working Group #368

Closed
1 task done
xfq opened this issue Feb 14, 2023 · 14 comments
Closed
1 task done

[wg/miniapps] Rechartering MiniApps Working Group #368

xfq opened this issue Feb 14, 2023 · 14 comments

Comments

@xfq
Copy link
Member

xfq commented Feb 14, 2023

New charter proposal, reviewers please take note.

Charter Review

MiniApps Working Group Charter 2023

What kind of charter is this? Check the relevant box / remove irrelevant branches.

  • Existing WG recharter - diff

Horizontal Reviews: apply the Github label "Horizontal review requested" to request reviews for accessibility (a11y), internationalization (i18n), privacy, and security. Also add a "card" for this issue to the Strategy Funnel.

Communities suggested for outreach:

MiniApp vendors

Known or potential areas of concern:

  • There are vendors interested in implementing, but no vendor has started to implement it yet. However, the WG has started discussing the testing plan, and third-party frameworks are also trying to convert standardized MiniApps into vendor-specific MiniApps.
  • The TAG has concerns about the origin model and the packaging format, which are still in discussion and have not yet been fully resolved.
  • Web App Manifest has internationalization issues that have not yet been resolved (like multiple natural language text fields share language/direction [I18N] manifest#968 ) and MiniApp Manifest depends on them.
  • There may be overlaps between the components work in the MiniApps CG and the Open UI CG, and the MiniApps CG is discussing a methodology of reusing existing work as much as possible.

Where would charter proponents like to see issues raised? (this strategy funnel issue, a different github repo, email, ...)

https://github.com/w3c/miniapp/issues

Anything else we should think about as we review?

@ruoxiran
Copy link

ruoxiran commented Mar 9, 2023

no comments from APA.

@himorin
Copy link

himorin commented Mar 15, 2023

No comment nor request from i18n

@plehegar
Copy link
Member

No comment from PING

@svgeesus
Copy link
Contributor

  1. The Normative specifications section omits the Draft State and Adopted Draft items, and it is harder to find the Exclusion Draft etc because the markup has been lost. See the charter template
  2. "Note: The actual production of some of the deliverables may follow a different timeline." :)
  3. Success criteria is missing significant language and links, compared to the charter template. Please use the charter template wording here, then add any additional wording (such as the last sentence about implementing APIs securely).
  4. Performance is not part of horizontal review. Maybe it should be, but it isn't.
  5. Nice addition on allocating resources for test suites
  6. The copyright information is incorrect, please see the charter template

@xfq
Copy link
Member Author

xfq commented May 29, 2023

Thanks for the comments, Chris! I have updated the charter to fix these points.

@plehegar
Copy link
Member

@xfq I added agenda+ so that strat can agree this is ready to move forward. Remove it if that's not the case.

@xfq
Copy link
Member Author

xfq commented Jun 1, 2023

@plehegar I think we already discussed this in strat (see https://www.w3.org/2023/04/11-strat-minutes.html#t01 ). I didn't ask for W3M approval because I think we should have a general direction regarding TAG's comment on MiniApps before starting AC review. Since we have one now (see w3c/miniapp#195 ), I can send an email to W3M (per https://www.w3.org/Guide/process/charter.html it's still W3M and not TiLT). WDYT?

@plehegar
Copy link
Member

plehegar commented Jun 1, 2023

@xfq, makes sense to me.

@plehegar plehegar removed the Agenda+ label Jun 1, 2023
@siusin
Copy link

siusin commented Jun 6, 2023

@xfq could you explain why MiniApp Addressing was listed as a Normative Specification but published as a Group Draft Note? Does the group have any specific expectations for this document?

@xfq
Copy link
Member Author

xfq commented Jun 6, 2023

@siusin Because it contains normative content, if it's on the REC track it can be protected by the W3C Patent Policy. It was a Note before because it was meant as a proposal being incubated, and the MiniApps CG was still discussing it with the TAG.

@plehegar plehegar changed the title Rechartering MiniApps Working Group [wg/miniapps] Rechartering MiniApps Working Group Sep 18, 2023
@siusin
Copy link

siusin commented Oct 7, 2023

The URL of Firefox OS' Open Web Apps is broken.

Please provide a permanent URL of the charter for the charter approval.

@xfq
Copy link
Member Author

xfq commented Oct 10, 2023

Thank you, @siusin. Fixed now.

The permanent URL is https://www.w3.org/2023/10/miniapps-wg-charter.html . I'll remove the draft label if/when it's approved.

@himorin
Copy link

himorin commented Oct 12, 2023

  • start date seems missing in the top abstract table
  • decision has ranged date as response period from 5 to 10 working days

@plehegar plehegar added the charter group charter label Oct 17, 2023
@xfq
Copy link
Member Author

xfq commented Oct 24, 2023

@xfq xfq closed this as completed Oct 24, 2023
@xfq xfq moved this from Chartering to Strategy Work Concluded in Strategy Team's Incubation Pipeline (Funnel) Oct 24, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Development

No branches or pull requests

7 participants
@plehegar @svgeesus @xfq @himorin @siusin @ruoxiran and others