Meeting minutes
minutes
<kaz> Apr-28
Lagally: minutes for April 28
… some info on security discussed prior to the meeting, should we move it or delete it?
… move under issue 726 for context
Lagally: approve?
… no objections, publish
Contributions
PR #742
<kaz> PR 742 - explainer updates for profile, use cases, cleanup
Lagally: explainer updates, remove editor notes
… add some links to profile and discovery
… replaced list of use cases with a table
… removed requirements section, covered in use cases document
… then have design discussion
… still missing a discovery section
McCool: let's merge, I can do a cleanup pass, add the discovery para
Lagally: merging
McCool: btw name is long, it makes the URL awkward, percent-encoded spaces, etc
Lagally: ok, pls change in your cleanup PR
Lagally: I will do a small PR first to clean up some minor things
McCool: ok, let me merge that before
PR #739
<kaz> PR 739 - Answers to accessibility questions
Lagally: accessibility
McCool: tricky, because WoT systems can have UIs but we don't constrain them
Kaz: also want to note got some comments from Janina, how to deal with existing IoT frameworks like Alexa, etc.
… how to use WoT to deal with accessibility for users
McCool: basically what I say in summary is that there can be accessibility impact, but adding such constraints was not in scope, but might be in the future
Lagally: maybe some of these "no" answers should be "possible"
Kaz: we haven't really seriously thought about how to incorporate UI constraints, but perhaps we should
… right after last F2F meeting, Michael Cooper presented, mentioned some possible extensions
McCool: also languages choices are themselves a kind of accessibility
Ege: displays, a stretch, we could think of an accessibility vocabulary, have some constraints, standardized affordances, etc.
McCool: note also these answers are for WoT as a whole, not just for TDs
Lagally: consider as a thought experiment CORBA, same answers?
McCool: can also update the intro a bit; some things we might be able to deal with layered on top of the current architecture
Lagally: one place a "yes" could be added
McCool: anyway, let me address the review comments, update the PR, have you check it, merge it, then mark the a*y issue as ready to review
McCool: for internationalization, still need to do that for architecture
… can look at what has already been done for TD and discovery
McCool: I may be able to get to that next week
PR #737
<kaz> PR 737 - Align binding related information
Lagally: binding related information
… this PR is carrying over an annex from the binding docs, correct?
Ege: yes, we agreed to move this to architecture
… currently these are in the "orphaned sections", appendix B1
McCool: why in architecture vs. TD
… concern is that it may mention things not defined in architecture, hence confusing, e.g. "op", "form", etc.
Lagally: let's see what we have already...
… do have a section that defines forms and operation types in general terms
… so maybe we need to do a bit of repair to avoid things like "readproperty" that have not been explicitly defined yet
Ege: not that a lot of these chapters were written before the TD was finalized
… also worth considering whether they should be included at all
Lagally: this PR does resolve two or three issues, but there are also some assertions
… it also removes some existing assertions, new ones don't correllate
McCool: what issues get fixed? PR combines fixes to both
Ege: also the assertions that were removed were ones we agreed to remove
Lagally: would be good to reference the issue where we agreed to remove issues
Lagally: please split also into fixes to separate issues; see comments on issue
<kaz> kaz: +1
Ege: is list from Toumura-san that we had agreed to remove...
Lagally: thought we *had* removed that...
<Ege> https://
<Ege> https://
toumura: agree with ege that we remove the bnf assertions
Lagally: yes, we all agreed, we just need to keep the bookkeeping straight
… much easier if there are multiple small PRs than one big one
Kaz: should have a PR for each issue
<kaz> [adjourned]