Meeting minutes
<zkis> Agenda:
<dape>
past minutes
No objections
Daniel: minutes are public
PRs
resolve ReSpec warnings
<dape> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/368
Daniel: should we leave out JSON-LD reference?
Cristiano: not so critical, we can improve it later - but not very precise
Zoltan: I suggest leaving it out and add it later when the formulation becomes more exact.
Jan: we could mention that TDs are JSON-LD documents
Daniel: the sentence was lifted from the TD spec abstract
Kaz: technically it depends on whether the group wants plain JSON, but we could just refer to the TD and don't mention details in the Scripting AP
DA: true, but we could still explain something that is true
… meaning that JSON-LD tools can be used on it.
Kaz: agree with Jan, if the group wants to give detail also in Scripting, but we can refer to TD since it's define elsewhere.
… if the TD definition is changed in the future, then we need to change it in every place
Daniel: so we either remove it, or we add more explanation.
<cris> +1
<JKRhb> +1
Zoltan: let's keep it simple and remove JSON-LD reference from now
Daniel: so one more edit, and will merge afterwards.
refactor: remove obsolete files
<dape> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/370
Daniel: in the TD spec repo it was also removed
Kaz: it's OK to remove
Daniel: merged
Fixes some minor typos/issues
<dape> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/371
Zoltan: just editorials, go ahead
Generate types for unreachable definitions
<dape> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/372
Cristiano: this relates to TypeScript and JSON schema definitions
… there was a problem with TypeScript tools
… so for undefined things it will generate definitions
… adds almost no information
… opened an issue on how can we add this feature to the dependency library, no answer yet
… these comments can stay for the moment
Daniel: fine for me
Jan: for TD there isn't a comment generated (probably not referenced) - but isn't there a comment field in the definition?
Cristiano: already addressed this in the comments on the PR
Daniel: if we merge it, we should create an issue to remind checking later
Jan: a number of merge conflicts, should rebase first
Cristiano: right
Daniel: will create the issue
Thing model types
<dape> https://
Daniel: creates TS definitions for Thing Models
… useful for implementations
Cristiano: indeed in node-wot we needed these
… also updated the script in the github CI
… not tested yet, though
Daniel: some typos still
Cristiano: and some conflicts to fix before merging
issues
Conformance section necessity
<dape> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/354
Kaz: if the WG would like to publish a document named WG Note which includes normative content, we can do that, but it's not a W3C recommendation.
Zoltan: so we need a group resolution
Kaz: the W3C process is changing these days, and defined a group note track, which we can use, based on the WG resolution
Daniel: will add an agenda item on the main call
Zoltan: we should check the content of the Note track before the main call
Kaz: if the Scripting TF wants to go a certain way, we can record a TF resolution and then bring it to the WG for a WG resolution
Daniel: updated the comment in the issue
Zoltan: we also need to send a formal email to the group
Rename Use Cases section
<dape> https://
ACTION: ZK creates a PR proposal
<cris> +1
Using a callback-based approach for Discovery
<dape> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/364
Daniel: should we treat this together with Cristiano's proposal for new API
Zoltan: let's treat them separately
Jan: should we make a PR on this?
Zoltan: no, let's first agree on the WebIDL before the PR - or well, we can start with a PR and change that one
Jan: yes, we can start with that
Zoltan: only that in a PR there are much more comments if there is disagreement on the API details
Jan: will post in the issue first, then
Daniel: we should stop here, time is up
adjourned