search

w3c / miniapp-packaging

MiniApp Packaging
https://w3c.github.io/miniapp-packaging/
Other
14 stars 9 forks source link

ZIP container for the package #4

Closed xfq closed 3 years ago

xfq commented 4 years ago

https://w3c.github.io/miniapp/specs/packaging/

If the package is within a ZIP archive, we should write that in the document and add a reference to ZIP. We also need to specify whether features in ZIP like encryption are allowed.

Ternence commented 4 years ago

We can think about to design a special package structure of binary. And defines an unique package file name.

Ternence commented 4 years ago

Firstly, Zip is more universal solution, It's more suitable for definition in the specification. But, an unique name of the file suffix and media type, It is more intuitive expression of a new technology.

zhangyongjing commented 4 years ago

Firstly, Zip is more universal solution, It's more suitable for definition in the specification. But, an unique name of the file suffix and media type, It is more intuitive expression of a new technology.

+1. We can propose a new file extension like .mpk (Miniapp PacKage) or .mp. Thoughts?

zhangyongjing commented 4 years ago

We can think about to design a special package structure of binary. And defines an unique package file name.

Are you suggesting a new file structure other than ZIP? Or more practically a extention based on ZIP? Could you describe it a bit more?

dauwhe commented 4 years ago

How does this work relate to Web Bundles, EPUB's OCF packaging (based on ZIP), or the Publishing Working Group's LPF packaging format (also ZIP, with manifest.json)?

svgeesus commented 4 years ago

I suggest referencing RFC 6839, in particular 3.6. The +zip Structured Syntax Suffix.

Also please state whether there are any fragment identifiers associated with the Media Type.

zhangyongjing commented 4 years ago

How does this work relate to Web Bundles, EPUB's OCF packaging (based on ZIP), or the Publishing Working Group's LPF packaging format (also ZIP, with manifest.json)?

All these technologies are based on ZIP, while the difference lies mainly in the content and purpose of the zip file. MiniApp package is to combine resources to build the MiniApp such as application pages, widgets, app logics, UI components, not for the delivery of packed 'web exchanges' or digital publications. It's more like an APK/IPA.

zhangyongjing commented 4 years ago

I suggest referencing RFC 6839, in particular 3.6. The +zip Structured Syntax Suffix.

Also please state whether there are any fragment identifiers associated with the Media Type.

Thanks for the comments. Done in pr w3c/miniapp#80

zhangyongjing commented 4 years ago

Firstly, Zip is more universal solution, It's more suitable for definition in the specification. But, an unique name of the file suffix and media type, It is more intuitive expression of a new technology.

+1. We can propose a new file extension like .mpk (Miniapp PacKage) or .mp. Thoughts?

In the whitepaper, I also found early proposal .ma, which seems good as well.

zhangyongjing commented 3 years ago

Shall we close it now?