<inserted> scribenick: sebastian
McCool: we should decide if the new version is backwards compatible or not
<kaz> proposed schedule
proposing to release the FPWD TD 1.1 in September
what does the group think about this?
McCool: depends on the content of the features we want to include
<kaz> [note: our Charter https://www.w3.org/2020/01/wot-wg-charter.html is available until 31 Jan 2022]
Sebastian: regarding backwards compatibility there was already a decision that TD 1.1 should be backwards compatible to TD 1.0
McCool: there may tools relying on 1.0 and may confuse developer if TD 1.1 is not compatible with the tool anymore
Kaz: agree with that
Taki: also agree with that
Daniel: agree with that,
deprecated features should be addressed in TD 2.0 version
... in API there was problem with readmultipleproperties, we
should clarify how to handle this in TD 1.1. Maybe remove
it
McCool: not sure yet if we should
remove it. for sure, it is underspecified
... there was an idea from Ben to mark
readmultipleproperties as at risk and maybe remove it if there
no complains
Kaz: there are examples in HTML standardizations, e.g., differences between HTML 4 and HTML 5. for the moment, we can keep the deprecated features and mark them "obsolete" or "deprecated"
McCool: we can also declare as "MAY"
Cristiano: the idea is to deprecate for now, right?
Daniel: we should discuss this in next API call on Monday
Kaz: we should generate a document on the differences between TD 1.0 and TD 1.1 first, and we need to do that if we remove deprecated features.
Sebastian: so far agreement about backwards compatibility to 1.0. There may some exceptions like for the readmultipleproperties.
FPWD TD 1.1 should cover the fixes of the bugs mentioned here https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/920
proposal to include the new OAuth2 flow usage as described here: https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/927
this PR is still in wip
McCool: in OAuth2 spec it is not
recommended to use the password mode
... we have to update this in Security Best Practices
document
the PR will ready for the FPWD
next PR which may included: https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/896
Sebastian: do not see any issues here. Will be discussed for FPWD
Cristiano: there is a related issue https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/912
scribenick: kaz
Cristiano: typo for cotentType and contentCoding
... should be contentMediaType and contentEncoding respectively
<kaz> Sebastian's comment on that
scribenick: sebastian
Sebastian: is there any objection to introduce contentMediaType and contentEncoding in data schema definition?
McCool: we should support as much possible from JSON Schema
JSON Schema spec: https://json-schema.org/understanding-json-schema/reference/non_json_data.html#id2
Sebastian: will introduce this both json schema terms in the existing PR
<inserted> scribenick: kaz
Sebastian: would like to move the TD Template section which is currently Appendix C to the main body
McCool: we should be open for this change
Sebastian: would copy the Appendix C
content to the main section
... also would put the examples
McCool: the issue of mine is whether
we have a concrete use case or not
... so that we can understand the mechanism
... copying the current content as a starting point is fine
Sebastian: ok
<McCool> actually, what I meant is that I would like to be able to include URI templates for forms and security schemes in templates, but this would be a modification of the current spec...
<McCool> ... but we can start with this and propose and discuss such extensions separately
Kaz: yeah, sounds reasonable
Sebastian: btw, maybe we might want to have an additional Media Type for TD Template registered with IANA
Kaz: at the moment, personally
think it might be an overkill
... would like to have wider discussion with related
experts/groups
McCool: maybe we could have some
quick way to identify the template
... anyway, let's create a GH issue to capture the point
<sebastian> issue were created for record https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/931
Sebastian: we should clarify which features are realistic for FPWD
Kaz: btw, we should think about our schedule in August since it's summer vacation season
Sebastian: yes, good topic for the next
week
... if you have any other ideas to be included in the FPWD,
please let me know
Sebastian: talked with Carsten
... discussion during the next WISHI call on July 30
McCool: is that part of the IETF 108 meeting?
Koster: separate one
McCool: we need to send an expert to
the WISHI discussion
... e.g., Ege
<sebastian> WISHI wiki page: https://github.com/t2trg/wishi/wiki/Agenda-items
Kaz: so the meeting on July 30 is only WISHI. right?
McCool: yes
... let's discuss the schedule for the next week during the
marketing call tomorrow
Kaz: ok
[adjourned]