Meeting minutes
Agenda Review
Ege: PRs, TD Optional Content Type and Charter
TD
PR 2118
<kaz> PR 2118 - Binding Intro Reorganization
Ege: I have merged PR 2118
… the " was the problem
… now the binding intro looks nice: https://
… some links and authors will be updated when going for FPWD
… with this the 4th box at w3c/
Issue 2112
<kaz> Issue 2112 - TD 2.0 FPWD Goals
Ege: 4th point around the Binding Mechanism is done
PR 2119
PR 2119 - Minor: remove duplication use & choose
Ege: some big changes happened. not sure why
… only one word has changed within index.template.html, though...
Daniel: maybe another PR in the meantime has happened
Ege: it seems I forgot to push something
Kaz: in the end, we just needed to wait a bit (until the rendered result for index.html is settled)
Ege: everyone is ok with this?
PR 2081
PR 2081 - Make contentType optional in ExpectedResponse and AdditionalExpectedResponse classes
Ege: this removes mandatory contenttype
… there is no default value for content type in td-validation.ttl
Ege: there is a change that the response should contain the contenttype if there is a response
Daniel: the id should be changed since the assertion text is different now
<kaz> Ege shows Example 36
Ege: I think the lines 1031 (If a content type is defined...) will need an assertion wrapper
Daniel: if there is an form level content type, that should imply that the response also has that content type
… unless it is overwritten
Kaz: I'm OK with the PR itself, but talking about the Assertion Wrapper has reminded me that maybe we need to check the script with McCool
Ege: will check with him
<kaz> (some more discussion about the changes from PR 2081)
<kaz> agreed with Daniel
Ege: actually I agreed but we need to be able to express that there is no response
Ege: the diff of the preview is looked at
Ege: any other comments?
<kaz> (none)
WG Charter Input
<kaz> WoT WG Charter
Ege: I will create a new issue on the wot repo
… bindings registry as a new deliverable
Ege: should we list the notes in the beginning
Kaz: notes are informative so they can be published. probably, we can simply mention within the Charter that we may publish several WG Notes to describe the detailed binding mechanism for each entry of the Bindings Registry.
Ege: ok I will separate them
mjk: can there be notes published without a WG if the WG does not exist anymore
Ege: in theory it is possible via CGs. A CG report can be the binding and the registry custodian applies the registry process defined to add the entry to the registry
Ege: any wish to add details to the documents?
Ege: (I wrote some inputs for now)
Kaz: I am ok with the input so far, and would suggest we add a specific label to this Issue, e.g., "WG Charter 2025"
Ege: any other input?
w3c/
… then we can adjourn for today