Closed xfq closed 8 months ago
no comments from APA.
No comment nor request from i18n
No comment from PING
Thanks for the comments, Chris! I have updated the charter to fix these points.
@xfq I added agenda+ so that strat can agree this is ready to move forward. Remove it if that's not the case.
@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 https://github.com/w3c/miniapp/issues/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?
@xfq, makes sense to me.
@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?
@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.
The URL of Firefox OS' Open Web Apps is broken.
Please provide a permanent URL of the charter for the charter approval.
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.
response period from 5 to 10 working days
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.
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:
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?