Meeting minutes
agenda
Cristiano: next time we might report issues from Scripting API
Ege: ok
Ege: we are going to talk about versioning tomorrow, we need Mccool
… we will focus on the use case discussion
minutes
<kaz> Jan-17
Ege: they look fine
… any other remarks?
… minutes approved
WoT resources
<kaz> wot-resources PR 19 - Carry over changes from the TD repo
Ege: it's a pr that is carring over static files in to wot repo
Ege: any point to make ?
… ok then merging
Kaz: do the TD task force want to merge this PR today and make a report next Wensday
Ege: yes
Kaz: it might be nicer to merge this PR after clarifying the version policy
… I'm fine merging now, but are we all ok to merge it now and talk about version management later?
Ege: good point, we had a discussion reguarding versioning but it is something to apply for future changes
Ege: wotsec should not be changed...
mahda: correct
… maybe something minor
Ege: I can look after the call
Kaz: how to validate this kind of updates?
… who is responsible? are they any guidelines to follow?
Ege: changes on the json schema I validated in playground
ack
Cristiano: about versioning the scripting api task force needs to publish a new tag with fixed version (e.g. 1.1.0) something. We need to collaborate on this
Ege: correct let me note this down
TD
Data mapping - PR 1165
<kaz> wot PR 1165 - Initial expansion of the DataMapping work item
Ege: we discussed last week
… I added comments
… luca do you want to discuss this?
Luca: I missed your review
… everything else should be fixed
Ege: ok for mergining
… this will be submitted as use case later on
… it is preliminary work within TD task force
Kaz: ok merging
… but we should think about how to deal with existing binary handling mechanisms on the Web like Web Assembly and MiniApps as potential Consumers as well.
Luca: not really related
Kaz: not this PR, but maybe in the next discussions
… we need to see how the data mapping mechanism on the WoT side can work with the browser as a possible Consumer as well.
Luca: as explained in the document the content-type is dealing the data.
… but sometimes we have to handle side-channels (n.d.r. like headers)
… current solution will not impact browsers
Kaz: webassembly is a middleware that is capable of handling different binary data and formats in web browser
… we should see how the WoT mechanism based on this data mapping proposal would be able to work with the mechanism on the browser side, e.g., Web Assembly.
Luca: not related, webassembly is yet another bytecode
Kaz: my point is not that WoT's data mapping mechanism to be implemented based on Web Assembly but that we need to see WoT can work with Web browser as a possible Consumer.
Ege: there has been some progress
Kaz: also other WGs are working on this topic
… not only Web Assembly but MiniApp (also Devices and Sensors, Web&Networks, etc.)
Ege: I agree that is not really related to this PR, but I note this down as a reminder for future WoT work
Jan: we run into a problem in Discovery and scripting and we saw the need for mapping of information for http headers
… we should take this into account
Ege: do you have a link for that?
<luca_barbato> eclipse-thingweb/
Ege: thank you, I propose to merge it and have a follow up discussion later
… merged
Formatting
<kaz> PR 1960 - Auto formatting
Ege: I worked on this
Ege: this is applying formatting and fixed html errors automatically
… there is actually no real diff on html
… it is purely formatting
… I also wrote down the list of the changes
… the whole idea is that we will have fewer of this
Cristiano: do you remember putting gitattribute file?
Ege: no, I'll add later
… CI too
Jan: I like trailing commas, why did you disable them?
Ege: it messes with our examples
… I couldn't find a way to cleanly deal with examples without disrupting them
Jan: the problem is that they are javascript files
Ege: we need a smarter prettier
… maybe I can skip that files
Jan: it is worth look into it because commas can prevent some common issues.
Daniel: I see Jan's point, but having serveral of different prietter config files it is not ideal
… we can discuss later
… we should keep clean and simple
Luca: I don't know biome is able to perform better here
<luca_barbato> https://
Luca: it is suppose to be nicer
… it is also faster
Ege: I'll check it in a separate PR
Cristiano: watch out that if you merge it and then try biome we might get another big diff
Ege: got it, I prefer to do it quickly to avoid conflicts with other PRs
… instead of duplicating prettier files we can add prittier ignore comments
Jan: we can do this another time
use cases
Ege: I cleaned up the text in the wiki
… I moved it as an issue to use cases repository
… the question is what do we want to do for UC ?
… we can look into issues for use cases
… I used a label
… Needs Use Case
… we can change it if needed
… my proposal is to go through issues and label them accordingly
Kaz: this kind of clarification on "TF collaboration vs separation of tasks" is very important.
Cristiano: suggest to assign ranges of issues to people. to split workload
Ege: ok we can split in 10 people
… we can try to assign pages to people
<mahda-noura> +1
Kaz: we don't need to work on all the issues
… we can identify which one are important
… we can group for feature importance
Ege: good ponts
Kaz: all the assignees have to keep in mind which use cases are important to implement actual services and systems like grouping multiple Things for Smart Cities.
Ege: let's start this work from next week
<cris_> +1
<luca_barbato> +1
Tomorrow
Ege: tomorrow we are going to discuss registry analysis and versioning
<Ege> w3c/
[adjourned]