<scribe> scribenick: kaz
Kaz quickly asks everybody if it's OK to use "#wot-script" as the IRC channel for the WoT Scripting API call because sometimes there is another WoT-related call on the same day which also use "#wot" as the IRC channel.
And everybody is OK with using "#wot-script" from now on.
<dape> https://www.w3.org/2020/10/05-wot-script-minutes.html
Daniel: (goes through the
minutes)
... don't see any blocking points
... any objections for publishing these minutes
(no objections)
Daniel: Cristiano gave some comment
Cristiano: agree with you that this
could be done on the client side
... but many event APIs support the 'once' option, and it would
be nice to have an additional feature for the WoT Scripting API
too. however, we should think about this more.
Daniel: Zoltan?
Zoltan: this is not generic event
handling but part of WoT Scripting API
... very WoT-specific
Zoltan: so would suggest we should not merge this PR but simply close it
Cristiano: we could add some specific label to record this idea?
Daniel: adds labels of "enhancement" and "for next iteration"
Kaz: if this feature is "useful" for the next version, we should keep this open
Zoltan: we can't identify actual solution for this idea, so it would be confusing to keep this open
Daniel: let's come back after getting
possible subscription API changes
... btw, Issue 268 is related to this PR
Zoltan: we should keep this as well
open
... also should add specific labels
Daniel: added "enhancement" label
Daniel: created a PR for this issue
Daniel: there are 3 documents related
to security
... but think the necessary points on mitigation are described
within the "WoT Security & Privacy Guidelines"
document
... so removed the Security Best Practices document and the
Security Testing MD file from the reference section
Kaz: think we should check with McCool
Daniel: yeah, we can, but note that the links for those two documents are broken
Cristiano: OK with merge, but we could ask McCool for updated resources
Note: Kaz checked with McCool and confirmed that PR 271 could be safely merged during the main call on Oct 14.
Cristiano: would clarification for Issue 241 before publication
Daniel: got a resolution to add a note explaining the relation between Scripting "interaction" and TD "affordance"
Zoltan: still strongly prefer
"interaction" to "affordance" for the WoT Scripting API
... we could add an Editor's note on the history of the
terminology
Cristiano: will do my best to explain
that
... you can improve the text later
Zoltan: ok
Daniel: we still have unresolved
issues but can we move forward with publication?
... what about versioning?
Cristiano: we need to wait for the joint discussion with the JSON-LD WG guys
Kaz: are you aware of the joint meeting with JSON-LD will be held tomorrow 2 hours later than the Scripting time?
Cristiano: yes
Daniel: yes
Daniel: need to update the Changes section
Zoltan: can create a PR for that purpose
Daniel/Kaz: tx
Cristiano: need more time
Kaz: we need to identify which Issues and PRs need to be fixed before publication, and if we've resolved all of them, we can go ahead and publish the updated draft (Changes section is one of those issues)
Zoltan: Daniel, please show the discovery API
9. The ThingDiscovery interface
more specifically "9.3 The ThingFilter dictionary"
(some discussion on the fragment property)
Daniel: we should not touch this part at the moment
Zoltan: can look into it
Kaz: this should be done after the publication. right?
Zoltan: at least can add clarification quickly, e.g., by tomorrow
Kaz: is there any concrete issue about this?
Zoltan: a related issue on the wot-discovery repo
Daniel: also related issue 222 created by Cristiano
Cristiano: we should handle those issues later
Cristiano: how to handle this within the Scripting API?
Zoltan: we use Promises for WoT
interactions
... why do we need to have an explicit feature for this?
... the current API definition is based on the API design
... that said, OAuth 2.0 code flow is a new proposal, so we can
continue the discussion
Cristiano: ok. let's see what we can
(we're out of time...)
Daniel: we'll have discussion during
the joint call with JSON-LD
... also next week
[adjourned]