[Scripting] minutes - 13 January 2020

available at:
  https://www.w3.org/2020/01/13-wot-minutes.html

also as text below.

Thanks a lot for taking the mintues, Zoltan!

Kazuyuki

---
   [1]W3C

      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                               - DRAFT -

                             WoT-Scripting

13 Jan 2020

Attendees

   Present
          Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool, Tomoaki_Mizushima,
          Zoltan_Kis, Daniel_Peintner

   Regrets

   Chair
          Zoltan

   Scribe
          zkis

Contents

     * [2]Topics
         1. [3]Future testing work
         2. [4]Public minutes
         3. [5]issues
     * [6]Summary of Action Items
     * [7]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

   <scribe> scribenick: zkis

Future testing work

   McCool: we need tests for all TD consumer and exposed Things
   ... node-wot acts as universal consumer
   ... but we need test coverage
   ... so what can we do about testing

   Daniel: we have an open issue on the testing and test framework

   McCool: for scripting, maybe there is a separate testing
   ... for some things are not visible for Scripting, like
   security configurations

   Kaz: when we say "testing" here, it's not the procedure for the
   recommendation track alone but it has a wider scope?

   McCool: we need to verify every feature in implementations of
   consumer and producers
   ... now most tests are focused on producers
   ... what we lack is the consumer side
   ... can we say node-wot is a consumer that implements all
   features in the spec?
   ... which features can be tested with scripts and which ones
   cannot
   ... we should create those feature lists

   Kaz: the transition requests for Architecture and TD are
   approved but Scripting is not on the REC track
   ... so this discussion is not related to the PR process for
   Architecture and TD
   ... and this is part of bigger testing discussion

   Daniel: even then we should indeed look into how to test the
   Scripting API itself and also using Scripting in testing
   consumers and producers

   McCool: Scripting is not in the Rec track, but it could be.

   Zoltan: we should raise the interest of browser makers

   <dape> [8]https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Implementations

      [8] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Implementations

   Daniel: we have asked about WoT implementations in 2016
   ... we need to come up with a way to identify if an
   implementation is WoT compliant and how much

   McCool: that's why we should have a test suite

Public minutes

   Zoltan: on meeting minutes: they will be public. Propose to
   have 1 week review period and if there are no correction
   suggestions, previous minutes are accepted as the first agenda
   point in meetings.

   Daniel: why do we need one week
   ... other WGs publish immediately, why not follow the same?

   Kaz: during the Architecture call and the TD call last week,
   there was discussion and for the first week people preferred
   there is trial about waiting for 1 week and then publish
   ... we can talk about this again during this week and if all
   agree in distributing immediately, we can do it

   McCool: minutes should be reviewed for accuracy;
   ... the draft is published on the mailing list, if nothing
   comes up then we can publish it
   ... and yes, we should follow the same rules in all TFs

issues

   [9]https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/200

      [9] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/200

   Zoltan: we should make a PR about this hopefully this week

   [10]https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/199

     [10] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/199

   Daniel: we can set write handlers even though the Property is
   not writeable

   Zoltan: the write handler would define the error handling
   ... will make a comment and wait for other people's input

   Daniel: the next issue is about TD updates

   [11]https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/198

     [11] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/198

   Daniel: we made a PR that is not going to be included in the
   final document, only in the next version

   Zoltan: so implementations could use different contentType vs
   DataSchema combinations, but the implementation should
   encapsulate that

   McCool: it is indeed possible to transform e.g. from XML to
   JSON in order to be able to represent as an object

   Daniel: in node-wot we also support plain string that is not
   JSON
   ... internally we have a blob and a marker that tells if a
   binary block is XML or JSON
   ... later you can parse it

   [12]https://infra.spec.whatwg.org/#json

     [12] https://infra.spec.whatwg.org/#json

   Daniel: DataSchema only defines the structure of the data on
   the wire

   Zoltan: but do we want to expose that DataSchema in a binary
   form to the app, rather than transforming to JSON?

   McCool: actually at the Scripting (not internal) level, we need
   a DataSchema being JSON

   Zoltan: to summarize, we have data, and data structure. Data
   structure is defined by contentType and eventually additional
   DataSchema.
   ... when there is contentType+DataSchema, then the DataSchema
   presented to the app should be JSON?
   ... or could be XML?
   ... we need use cases why we need to present other than JSON
   (in Scripting)

   adjourned

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    David Booth's [13]scribe.perl version 1.154 ([14]CVS log)
    $Date: 2020/02/03 01:27:58 $

     [13] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [14] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Monday, 3 February 2020 01:29:31 UTC