11:02:08 RRSAgent has joined #wot-script 11:02:08 logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/09/26-wot-script-irc 11:02:22 cris_ has joined #wot-script 11:02:50 meeting: WoT Scripting API 11:03:19 JKRhb has joined #wot-script 11:04:17 present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Cristiano_Aguzzi, Jan_Romann 11:04:53 dape has joined #wot-script 11:05:25 present+ Daenil_Peintner 11:05:53 present- Daenil_Peintner 11:06:01 present+ Daniel_Peintner 11:07:09 Mizushima has joined #wot-script 11:09:13 scribenick: JKRhb 11:09:20 topic: Previous Minutes 11:09:26 agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Scripting_API_WebConf#September_26.2C_2022 11:09:42 -> https://www.w3.org/2022/09/05-wot-script-minutes.html Sep-5 11:10:00 dp: Last meeting was the one before TPAC 11:10:31 ... during TPAC, we at least got one slot to discuss the move to formal note which was approved 11:10:49 ... the minutes themselves look good to me 11:10:56 ... any objections to making them public? 11:11:14 ca: Just one note: Aren't the names changed before publishing? 11:11:27 dp: That's done by kaz manually afterwards 11:11:36 ... apart from that any more issues, concerns? 11:11:48 ... if not, I would ask kaz to mark them as final 11:11:58 Minutes are approved 11:12:30 topic: Summary of the TPAC Meetings 11:12:31 present+ Tomoaki_Mizushima 11:13:12 dp: We had some discussions before the TPAC regarding a switch of the document type 11:13:43 q+ 11:13:54 ... we now switch to a Formal Note in the next charter, which enables us to use normative statements (SHOULD, MUST, ...) 11:14:24 kaz: Please note that there is no real change to the document type 11:14:59 ... we can just use normative statements in some places, which is not endorsed by W3C as whole 11:16:21 ... I don't think there is a real difference between the two document types, we need to be aware of the possibility that there might be special requirements 11:17:05 dp: If we don't need to make specific changes, it is fine for me 11:17:46 ... if it causes any issues we need to revisit this topic 11:18:12 ... I will go through the Process document once more 11:19:40 topic: WoT Profile 11:20:07 s/we now switch to a Formal Note in the next charter/we now switch to a Note including Normative portions during the next charter/ 11:20:12 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-testing/tree/main/events/2022.09.Online 11:20:20 dp: There were some discussions before TPAC, but I am not sure if everyone is aware of this week's Profile Plugfest 11:20:34 q+? 11:20:38 q+ 11:20:39 ack k 11:20:40 ... Michael Lagally sent an email today 11:20:42 ack ? 11:20:44 q- ? 11:21:47 ... Plugfest starts tomorrow, node-wot and Scripting API are not supporting the Profile yet (completely) 11:21:59 ack cris 11:22:21 ca: According to the email, the Plugfest starts next week 11:22:37 kaz: The date in the wiki is wrong 11:23:23 ... mentioned before that this week would be difficult to organize, therefore the Plugfest got postponed 11:23:32 ... date in the Wiki needs to be updated 11:24:00 ... even having the Plugfest next week is at risk in my opinion, as we are not yet prepared 11:24:12 +1 11:24:21 s/there is no real change to the document type/there is no difference for publishing the WoT Scripting API as a WG Note from the viewpoint of the W3C Process./ 11:24:23 zkis has joined #wot-script 11:24:44 dp: I agree, we are not well prepared 11:24:51 q? 11:24:53 q+ 11:25:21 ... not sure if I can implement the profile in node-wot until next week 11:25:27 ... feel free to contribute 11:25:53 q+ 11:25:56 ... started a PR for node-wot, adding profile-specific operation types 11:26:20 ... currently those op types are limited to the profile, but they might come to the TD specification as well 11:26:43 kaz: We need to have a plan for the Plugfest and set the requirements 11:27:01 ... the Plugfest should only collect the results 11:27:12 ack kaz 11:27:12 ack k 11:27:13 +1 kaz 11:27:14 .. should be discussed in main call and Plugfest call 11:27:31 dp: Requirements should come from the Profile taskforce 11:27:33 rrsagent, make log public 11:27:39 rrsagent, draft minutes 11:27:39 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/26-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 11:27:56 ca: I agree 11:28:11 chair: Daniel 11:28:26 dp: As kaz said, otherwise Plugfest is at risk 11:28:49 ... I think Luca Barbato was also working or at least exploring a Profile implementation 11:29:01 ... this was it for the quick updates 11:29:05 s/as whole/as a whole/ 11:29:13 topic: PRs 11:29:29 present+ Zoltan_Kis 11:29:48 dp: Some PRs are stalled, there was activity in the ones by Cristiano and Jan 11:29:54 subtopic: PR #423 11:30:23 s/I don't think there is a real difference between the two document types,/Anyway, I don't think there is any difference from the W3C Process viewpoint./ 11:30:34 dp: There were some remaining questions regarding "void" in the context of the payload 11:30:37 q? 11:30:42 ack cris_ 11:31:23 ca: To avoid confusions, I used the word "empty" instead of "void" to avoid confusion 11:31:29 q+ 11:31:36 Ege has joined #wot-script 11:31:55 s/"void" to avoid confusion/"void"/ 11:32:42 dp: The only thing I noticed was the formatting of the empty term 11:32:49 ca: I will fix it 11:33:23 zk: I think we should add more examples and specify something in the algorithms 11:33:40 ... also we should refer to existing specifications 11:33:44 s|we need to be aware of the possibility that there might be special requirements|As recorded within the TPAC minutes, I'll talk with PLH about this idea, but you all are also encouraged to visit the www.w3.org/TR area to see similar cases of normative group Notes. If we need to explicitly mention we're planning to generate a group Notes containing normative portions within our new Charter, that might be going to cause additional discussions during 11:33:44 the AC reviews.| 11:34:14 ... or to protocol bindings 11:34:34 s/I will go through the Process document once more/I will go through the Process document once more, and will see the examples of normative Notes at the TR area./ 11:34:40 ca: Unfortunately, I think there is no section in any of the protocol bindings 11:34:55 rrsagent, draft minutes 11:34:55 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/26-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 11:35:27 q+ 11:35:30 dp: Protocol bindings are sadly not entirely ready yet, although Ege indicated that they might be ready soon 11:35:42 ack zkis 11:36:07 ca: I heard something similar, we should discuss with Ege that algorithms should be added 11:36:40 ack k 11:37:03 kaz: Binding Templates are not describing anything concrete yet, as Daniel mentioned, we need a drastic content update 11:37:35 ... we need to keep in mind the overall structure of the specifications 11:37:57 ... probably, this is out of scope for the current charter and should be addressed in the next charter period 11:38:40 i|There were some re|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/423 PR 423 - Remove eventHandler| 11:38:42 dp: Discussing with Ege, since he also responded here, sounds like a good ida 11:38:49 s/ida/idea/ 11:38:49 https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/430 11:39:07 zk: I opened an issue and added a comment with my points 11:40:09 dp: I'll change the formatting of the "empty" term from code style to italics 11:40:17 ... then we can move on, right? 11:40:23 zk: I think we could even merge 11:40:30 ca: Would be fine to merge 11:40:46 dp: He got two approvals already, so let's move forward 11:40:49 PR is merged 11:41:06 Ege has joined the call in the meantime 11:41:36 present+ Ege_Korkan 11:42:11 q+ 11:42:43 dp informs Ege about the current state of the discussion -- an empty payload might have different semantics depending on the protocol that is being used 11:44:02 ek: We are not using algorithms defined in the Binding Templates yet, but defining an empty payload sounds good 11:44:36 ... it is a special case where no data is present, we haven't specified it yet 11:44:44 ... I will take it to the Binding Templates 11:45:24 ... maybe you can add a link to issue #430, Ege 11:45:56 s/... maybe you ca/dp: maybe you ca/ 11:47:46 subtopic: PR #405 11:48:09 q? 11:48:11 ack e 11:48:42 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/405 PR 405 - feat!: add new Discovery Web IDL definitions 11:49:18 q+ 11:49:31 q+ 11:50:16 rrsagent, draft minutes 11:50:16 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/26-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 11:50:24 zk: I noticed that the url has become mandatory, this should be moved and discussed in a separate PR 11:50:51 s/the AC reviews.|// 11:50:57 dp: I was wondering if we should have something like "auto" as well 11:51:07 zk: Could be specified in the algorithms 11:51:25 s/additional discussions during/additional discussions during the AC reviews./ 11:51:26 rrsagent, draft minutes 11:51:26 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/26-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 11:51:31 ack dape 11:52:35 zk: We could also include auto configuration in the discovery case without uri parameter 11:54:40 ack cris_ 11:55:11 q? 11:55:50 ca: This PR is introducing an AsyncIterable now, right? 11:56:57 jr: Correct 11:57:16 rrsagent, draft minutes 11:57:16 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/26-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 11:57:33 zk: The uri parameter change should be moved to a different PR to make faster progress with this PR 11:58:01 ... we also need to take into account the security aspects from the Discovery specification 11:58:28 ... the algorithm changes look fine, we could have a look at other specifications as homework 11:58:38 topic: Issues 11:59:00 subtopic: WoT Issue #1049 11:59:33 dp: Please have a look at this proposal for new points for the next charter 12:00:28 q+ 12:00:31 ... I suppose as before, there will be a section regarding other deliverables in the charter 12:01:00 ... in the last charter, there was no mentioning of discovery, this is definitely something that needs to be included in the next charter 12:01:05 q+ 12:01:05 https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1043/files 12:01:20 ... please have a look regarding wording etc. 12:01:45 kaz: As I mentioned before, we need to clarify the relationships within the whole document structure 12:02:13 ... we need a discussion in the main call that goes beyond the mentioning of discovery in the Scripting API 12:02:32 ca: Is this the right place to mention the provisioning API 12:02:44 s/relationships within the whole document structure/relationship among the WoT specs and the whole structure of the related specs./ 12:02:49 s/provisioning API/provisioning API?/ 12:03:07 s/the mentioning of/just mentioning/ 12:04:05 dp: I think that it makes sense, but in the end it will probably just become one paragraph 12:04:13 ... we should discuss this main call 12:04:24 ack c 12:04:25 ... feel free to add comments 12:04:50 [adjourned] 12:05:24 ack k 12:05:27 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:05:27 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/26-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 12:06:21 chair: Daniel 12:06:22 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:06:22 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/26-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 12:36:51 Mizushima has left #wot-script 12:41:03 zkis has joined #wot-script 13:09:25 Ege has joined #wot-script 14:11:25 Zakim has left #wot-script