W3C

– DRAFT –
WoT Scripting API

05 December 2022

Attendees

Present
Cristiano_Aguzzi, Daniel_Peintner, Jan_Romann, Kaz_Ashimura, Tomoaki_Mizushima, Zoltan_Kis
Regrets
-
Chair
Cristiano/Daniel
Scribe
kaz, zkis

Meeting minutes

Agenda

<cris_> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Scripting_API_WebConf

Cristiano: Agenda tbd...

past meeting

<cris_> Nov-28

Cristiano: will chair until Daniel comes

No objections on the past minutes, accepted.

issue 364

<cris_> Issue 364 - Discovery API - Alternatives

Zoltan: one question is how the algorithm for traversing/exploring TDDs defined

Cristiano: some info exists in the Discovery spec, if not a defined algorithm
… in the Discoverer process section

Zoltan: should we define the formal algorithm with dependency to the Discovery spec

Cristiano: is this a Scripting algorithm, or should it follow the Discovery spec?

Zoltan: I think we can define that algorithm and get it reviewed by the Discovery TF.

Cristiano: a lot of MAY clauses in the Discovery spec (mostly suggestions).

Cristiano: we can interpret that to specify a discovery algorithm

Cristiano: I agree we could do later exposing the option of how deep the TDD traversal is done

Jan: agree to leave it for later

Zoltan: a second question in the issue: if we ever do local discovery, will it be a separate method or a dict option
… I suggest separate method

Cristiano: agree about separate method

Daniel: we can decide that later, too

Daniel: maybe we can open an issue to track that

Cristiano: agreed

next calls

Daniel: we have 2 remaining meetings this year, on 12 and 19 Dec. Then on Jan 16.

Cristiano: added to the wiki?

Daniel: yes, in the global wiki

<dape> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#Cancellations_and_Schedule_Updates

<kaz> Cancellations on the main wiki

<kaz> Scripting API wiki Agenda

PR 441

<cris_> PR 441 - Align the discovery API with the Discovery spec. WiP.

Zoltan: a question on whether to use promise for discovery

Daniel: that aligns well with the other conformance classes

Zoltan: we have a single generic discovery algorithm, a meta-algorithm used in all the others

Daniel: can we express conformance classes in Web IDL?

Zoltan: no, only in prose

Zoltan: we might miss the specific directory discovery algorithm, factored out in a separate section
… so please review that with an eye on that
… I could add another commit to include a skeleton

Daniel: by just looking at the Web IDL, cannot tell what belongs to conformance classes

Zoltan: we could do separate API objects for the conformance classes, but usually that means separate spec, because of the security, privacy and permissions.

Zoltan: complex namespace hierarchies would not be good

Cristiano: and not supported any more

Cristiano: so, we need to review the PR and eventually add commits

Daniel: what about multiple URL types for discovery, are they specified in the Discovery spec?

Cristiano: there is a section about CoAP, but it will be addressed maybe in the next charter
… right now we can support CoAP and HTTP

Daniel: maybe the requestThingDescription() might remain open in the end

Zoltan: good point about how are we testing the API? test suite...

Zoltan: I suggest we define a narrowed use case for requestThingDescription(), not a generic do-it-all method

Cristiano: other new features, like cancelable actions are for the next charter

issue 417

<cris_> Issue 417 - emitPropertyChange does not take low-level event apis into account

Cristiano: will discuss it later

issue 409

<cris_> Issue 409 - Harmonize the exposing process

Zoltan: makes sense to revive the discussion, and eventually conclude in this round

adjourned

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 196 (Thu Oct 27 17:06:44 2022 UTC).