W3C

– DRAFT –
WoT Scripting API

13 December 2021

Attendees

Present
Cristiano_Aguzzi, Daniel_Peintner, Kaz_Ashimura, Tomoaki_Mizushima, Zoltan_Kis
Regrets
-
Chair
Daniel
Scribe
zkis

Meeting minutes

Minutes

<dape> Previous minutes: https://www.w3.org/2021/12/06-wot-script-minutes.html

Daniel: minutes look good

no objections, minutes approved

publication

Daniel: updated Note in early 2022

Daniel: it was discussed that we can merge PRs right away, don't need to wait for the call
… we apply this for editorial PRs

holidays

Daniel: Cancellations section of the WoT main wiki the last Scripting call this year
… the last main call will be this and next week

Daniel: so next Scripting call is on Jan 10, 2022

PRs

Mark repo as host of note track work

<dape> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/359

Kaz: it's mainly fixing a typo

Zoltan: we should have fixed that long time ago

Daniel: no objections, merged

Allow only one subscription per affordance

<dape> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/356

Daniel: asking if subscriptions internal slots contain names or objects

Cristiano: contains names of the subscriptions

Zoltan: only the name of the internal slots is misleading, but this short form is fine

Daniel: then there are some minor typos

<cris> link to the implementation

Zoltan: so it's a Map in the impl,

Cristiano: should work like a set

Daniel: right, the implementation respects the spec

Daniel: will be merged when the minor typos are fixed

Issues

Rename Use Cases section

<dape> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/355

Zoltan: could make a PR, using "Developer use cases" name, and link to the Use Cases doc

<kaz> W3C specs with the title including "API"

Kaz: still don't understand why should we use "Use Cases", checked other specs, and most of them didn't use "Use Cases" as a title of this kind of content. maybe "examples of APIs" or something like that.

<kaz> e.g., Geolocation API

<dape> NFC API

Zoltan: there was another spec, too, but it's also possible to list the use cases without calling them in a section like "Use Cases"

Kaz: Developer use cases, maybe possible, but not sure if it's the right term

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_case

Cristiano: developer use cases fit well, since it explains what we want, then the API described how we do it

Daniel: this got escalated beyond utility, we should make a decision

Zoltan: DP should make a decision, otherwise the group chairs can make a decision

Daniel: we cannot put Scripting use cases in the Use cases document

Daniel: "Developer use cases" is OK for me

Daniel: if that is OK with Kaz

Kaz: as I mentioned, I don't really think that is the right term for this content, so if we really want to use that term, would suggest we check with PLH
… and the usage of "Use Cases" in W3C

Zoltan: it seems we cannot make a decision today, we can defer it before publication

Conformance section necessity

<dape> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/354

Kaz: some of the group notes used to be REC track documents and still have Conformance sections, but should be removed

Daniel: we need the Conformance spec, for if someone implements it, it has to respect the defined conformance classes

Kaz: the group notes cannot use normative language

Daniel: needs to be discussed with PLH, we need the Conformance section

Zoltan: we might need to put the spec back to the REC track

Kaz: correct, if we want normative spec
… will check again

Daniel: adjourned

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 185 (Thu Dec 2 18:51:55 2021 UTC).