Re: W3C ���������MiniApp ���������������������������������������������

Hi Alex,

Thank you for reaching out and sharing the latest developments regarding web capabilities!

As you may know, we created a CG[1] following discussions at TPAC to incubate work on MiniApps, and the CG welcomes participation from browser vendors and the wider Web standards community.

We plan to create a few task forces to incubate specific technical proposals, including (but not limited to): package structure, URI scheme, lifecycle events, manifest, and widgets. With a standardized technical architecture, we can look into the possibility of displaying MiniApps in browsers and other user agents. For the existing work in W3C (such as manifest), we are also happy to provide feedback the relevant working groups and trying to converge. Moving the frequently-used set of native controls into standards is also something we would like to work on, although it's not in our initial set of task forces for the moment, since we haven't found a volunteer to lead the effort yet.

We have discussed future plans with a number of MiniApps vendors. They're glad to hear feedback from the TAG and the browser vendors, and we're also expecting more Chinese vendors participating in this CG. Providing feedback via the CG GitHub repo[2] and mailing list[3] is more than welcome!

Regards,

Fuqiao Xue
Team Contact, W3C Chinese Web Interest Group

Footnotes:

[1] https://www.w3.org/community/miniapps/
[2] https://github.com/w3c/miniapp/
[3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-miniapps/

> On Sep 17, 2019, at 2:21 PM, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I'm Alex Russell, an engineer leading some of the PWA work happening within the Chrome team at Google.
> 
> This whitepaper is extraordinarily useful, as it crisply describes the important properties of a major platform which is not as well known outside the China market. The best forum in which to respond wasn't entirely clear, hence this email. Please let me know if you'd prefer I file specific issues in the related Github repo.
> 
> Regarding web capabilities, the whitepaper and gap analysis might benefit from updates to include mention of a few recent and upcoming features:
> 
>  • Progressive Web App organic installation ("Add to Homescreen", launched in 2015) enable users to download/install web apps
>  • Trusted Web Activities (launched spring '18) allow PWAs to be listed in app stores on Android. Microsoft's work allowed PWAs to be listed in the Windows store starting in 2017. Both of these systems provide access extended native capabilities
>  • Web Packaging (SXG launched spring '18 & Bundles in development now) allows web content (including full applications) to be signed, shared offline, and potentially verified. Packages also allow web content to be bundled into a single binary file that can be hosted off-origin for optimal performance.
>  • AR capabilities, including the <model-viewer> web component
>  • Face tracking & barcode scanning via the Shape Detection API (in development) or custom OpenCV.js implementations via WASM (available now).
>  • The Contacts API (coming soon to Chrome) enables PWAs to request the user's contact information.
>  • Fingerprint authentication via WebAuthN and the Credential Management API (launched in Chrome)
>  • Portals (in development) for transition animations
> 
> The gap analysis document is very thorough, and I thank the authors for such a detailed table.
> 
> In areas such as Widgets, we have sketched multiple approaches for PWAs to provide this sort of UI. The best way forward hasn't been clear, so my team is keen to learn more about the requirements for these widgets and to explore if there's a web-centric way to address them. In many other areas where gaps between MiniApps and PWAs have been noted, we're also keen to close them and design collaboratively. In some areas (such as AR model loading), we have preferred to help developers meet those needs via libraries with a potential path towards standardisation based on that experience. Collaborating on those APIs seems like a large opportunity to improve speed and capabilities for developers across the entire ecosystem.
> 
> A few high-level questions remain from the "Way Forward in W3C" section of the whitepaper:
> 
>  • To what extent is it a goal to enable standardised MiniApps to participate in the web? That is, is it a goal for browsers (e.g. UC, Opera, Xiaomi Browser, Samsung Internet, Chrome, Firefox, Brave, etc.) to be able to display standardised MiniApps?
>  • There's a mention of MiniApp URI scheme, which sounds promising. URLs and origins are core to the web's architecture and bringing MiniApp content into the web could be a great step forward. To what extent are the firms working within the IG open to independent hosting and deployment of this content at unique origins?
>  • Given the large number of proposed capabilities, and my team's interest in closing those gaps from the web-standards/PWA side, is it a goal of the potential standardisation process to adopt web-standard APIs where they are available?
>  • Is it a goal of the MiniApp standardisation work to move the frequently-used set of native controls into standards? The proposal for models and maps seem particularly compelling.
> 
> If there's a way to align MiniApp standardisation with the work we're pursuing to expand PWA capabilities and work together to close the gaps identified in the whitepaper, I'm excited to collaborate.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Alex Russell
> Google Chrome
>

Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2019 09:16:31 UTC