11:03:32 RRSAgent has joined #wot-script 11:03:37 logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/05/22-wot-script-irc 11:04:02 meeting: WoT Scripting API 11:04:55 present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Cristiano_Aguzzi, Jan_Romann 11:05:03 regrets+ Daniel_Peintner 11:06:25 Mizushima has joined #wot-script 11:06:48 JKRhb has joined #wot-script 11:06:58 scribenick: JKRhb 11:07:02 topic: Minutes Review 11:07:17 ca: Already check the status of the minutes, look fine 11:07:29 ... Only the names need to be changed 11:07:34 kaz: Please reload 11:07:41 ca: Names are adjusted 11:07:52 ... during the meeting, we went over a few PRs 11:08:10 ... then we discussed a PR (473), which we will revisit today 11:08:21 ... if there are no objections, we can approve the minutes 11:08:26 Minutes are approved 11:08:30 topic: PRs 11:08:52 ca: Daniel reached out to me that it would be great if we could make progress on two PRs opened by him 11:09:00 subtopic: PR 477 11:09:02 https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/477 11:09:13 s/https/-> https/ 11:09:21 ca: This PR was about updating and creating all necessary documents for publication 11:09:28 s/477/477 PR 477 - 2023 note2 updates2/ 11:09:34 ... we already went over one review, that we merged last time 11:09:36 present+ Tomoaki_Mizushima 11:09:50 ... with this PR, he fixes a number of additional issues 11:09:59 ... however, there are some issues with ReSpec left 11:10:06 ... we have two options here 11:10:30 ... first option would be to wait for a ReSpec update (Daniel opened an issue in the ReSpec repo) 11:10:52 ... the other option would be to remove the partial namespaces, as suggested by Zoltan 11:11:05 ... (shows the rendered version) 11:12:22 q+ 11:12:24 ... we can add a workaround by moving the WebIDL definitions into the WOT namespace from the partial namespaces 11:12:32 ... this should resolve the issue for now 11:12:35 ... any opinions? 11:12:56 kaz: First of all, we should clarify that this is only included in the examples 11:13:12 ... I am not sure why we define partial namespaces at all 11:13:51 ... we should clarify that this is only part of the example code and not of a normative section 11:14:16 ca: So you are saying that we should check that the partial namespaces are the actual cause of the problem 11:14:43 ca: Regarding the partial namespaces, we are using them to have the definitions closer to the related text, to make it easier for the reader 11:14:59 ... it does not change much to move the definitions up, it just makes it easier to read 11:15:26 kaz: For the main specification body, that makes sense, but what about the appendix? There are also partial definitions 11:15:55 ca: This is something we cannot control, this is autogenerated and copy-and-pasted automatically 11:16:08 kaz: There is also no explanation for the appendix 11:16:43 ca: This is due to the fact that is generated by a script, it is just for making things a bit easier, but we can also remove it 11:17:37 kaz: I am wondedring, does Appendix C make sense for an ordinary reader outside the working group? We as working group members can understand it but other developers might not get our intentions with this example code 11:19:03 ca: I can't say it for sure, since I am biased, but I found it useful when implementing node-wot. What about you, Jan? 11:19:46 jr: I haven't used it, but now that I know of it it could be useful. Maybe adding a comment could be useful for making it easier to use for developers? 11:20:18 ca: Will open an issue to record that we should expand the appendix 11:20:57 kaz: The appendix is probably the reason for the error, and we need to resolve the issue before publication 11:21:55 ... will talk to the W3C web master to clarify if we can at least publish an updated note 11:22:15 s/at least// 11:22:29 ... since it is a bug in ReSpec 11:22:35 zkis has joined #wot-script 11:22:46 ca: (captures the discussion in a PR comment) 11:23:58 present+ Zoltan_Kis 11:25:21 zk: The reason we had the partial definitions were the different conformance classes we had defined 11:25:31 ... the bug itself is not in the spec 11:26:06 q+ 11:26:10 ... so we might be able to go forward with the current state of the document, no reason to change it if it provides more clarity 11:26:49 kaz: You can go ahead with merging this PR, I will talk to the web master based on it 11:26:52 q? 11:27:13 ... about the checker, you should create a dedicated issue 11:27:25 ... which we can refer to with the web master 11:27:35 ca: (creates a follow-up issue) 11:28:09 kaz: We can talk about the errors separately with the web master or PLH 11:28:27 ... you can simply copy Daniel's later comments 11:28:48 ca: I will link Daniel's comment in the new issue (#480) 11:29:19 ... I understood that the consensus is to merge this PR, any blockers or concerns? 11:29:24 ... (merging) 11:29:32 subtopic: PR 478 11:29:36 https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/478 11:29:45 ca: Then we have this PR by Daniel 11:30:05 ... this PR also moves the fixes to the main document 11:30:11 ... to prefer for publication 11:30:21 ... is it okay to merge this one, Kaz? 11:30:38 kaz: My question is when the document will be fixed and ready for publication 11:31:02 s/https/-> https/ 11:31:19 ca: This PR fixes the main document, however, we could also wait with it after the publication process 11:31:27 ... the fixes are very simple 11:31:37 kaz: In that case we can merge the PR 11:32:07 ... it is just using CSS styling instead of attributes, right? 11:32:10 ca: Yes 11:32:41 kaz: I am just wondering when the document will finally be ready, I am not happy with all of these small changes every day 11:33:05 ca: After this PR we should be done, this is just a result of the document checker 11:33:11 s/478/478 PR 478 - Fix HTML issues/ 11:33:28 kaz: Then I am fine with merging, and we could start the publication process after this call 11:33:45 ca: Exactly, are you also fine with merging, Zoltan? 11:33:51 zk: I am 11:34:04 ca: Then we can go ahead with merging this PR 11:34:09 ... (merging) 11:34:33 ca: After this PR, we can now close the call early 11:34:39 ... any other business? 11:34:54 ... we have a couple of issues, but I don't want to move ahead today 11:35:14 zk: It's fine, but we should move ahead with issues soon 11:35:38 ca: There is a new issue by Luca, but we can discuss it in the next call 11:35:54 zk: We can also comment on the issue offline 11:36:36 ca: I agree, there is also no issue that requires critical discussion at the moment, expect maybe issue 409 11:37:05 s/expect/except/ 11:37:08 ... what I would like to do is to categorize the issues and define a proper plan to move on 11:37:15 ... next time 11:37:51 zk: We should also discuss the schedule until the next publication 11:38:06 ca: I agree, my only doubt is that this connects with the rechartering 11:38:29 ... we need to discuss this more thoroghly, maybe over the course of a full meeting 11:38:48 ... I would ask everyone to review the currently open issues 11:39:03 zk: We should also review implementations and get feedback from implementors 11:39:24 ... and define what we prioritize 11:39:37 i/It's fine/topic: Next steps/ 11:39:49 rrsagent, make log public 11:39:51 rrsagent, draft minutes 11:39:52 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/05/22-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 11:39:59 ca: (opens an issue regarding "Implementation status & feedback) 11:40:11 https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/481 11:41:20 ... we should ping implementors, also besides node-wot and dart_wot 11:41:33 jr: There is also a Python implementation, but it is outdated 11:42:07 zk: I think we should also keep the issues under the "Spec-improvement" label in mind 11:42:30 ca: We can continue working offline 11:42:48 ... (shows issue 444 as an example) 11:42:56 zk: I think this issue is done 11:43:09 ca: We can close it next time 11:43:16 ... (adds a comment to the issue) 11:43:32 zk: We should link the PR that has resolved it, I will do so offline 11:43:45 ca: The same probably applies to issue 443 11:44:07 zk: Should also be fixed, will check it 11:45:04 ca: Until next time, we will go through all the issues and prioritize them, and we should also try to get feedback from implementors 11:45:13 ... with that in mind, I would close the call 11:45:22 [adjourned] 11:45:34 rrsagent, draft minutes 11:45:36 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/05/22-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 13:34:26 Zakim has left #wot-script 13:59:47 Mizushima has left #wot-script