Meeting minutes
Minutes Review
Cristiano: Already check the status of the minutes, look fine
… Only the names need to be changed
Kaz: Please reload
Cristiano: Names are adjusted
… during the meeting, we went over a few PRs
… then we discussed a PR (473), which we will revisit today
… if there are no objections, we can approve the minutes
Minutes are approved
PRs
Cristiano: Daniel reached out to me that it would be great if we could make progress on two PRs opened by him
PR 477
<cris_> PR 477 - 2023 note2 updates2
Cristiano: This PR was about updating and creating all necessary documents for publication
… we already went over one review, that we merged last time
… with this PR, he fixes a number of additional issues
… however, there are some issues with ReSpec left
… we have two options here
… first option would be to wait for a ReSpec update (Daniel opened an issue in the ReSpec repo)
… the other option would be to remove the partial namespaces, as suggested by Zoltan
… (shows the rendered version)
… we can add a workaround by moving the WebIDL definitions into the WOT namespace from the partial namespaces
… this should resolve the issue for now
… any opinions?
Kaz: First of all, we should clarify that this is only included in the examples
… I am not sure why we define partial namespaces at all
… we should clarify that this is only part of the example code and not of a normative section
Cristiano: So you are saying that we should check that the partial namespaces are the actual cause of the problem
Cristiano: Regarding the partial namespaces, we are using them to have the definitions closer to the related text, to make it easier for the reader
… it does not change much to move the definitions up, it just makes it easier to read
Kaz: For the main specification body, that makes sense, but what about the appendix? There are also partial definitions
Cristiano: This is something we cannot control, this is autogenerated and copy-and-pasted automatically
Kaz: There is also no explanation for the appendix
Cristiano: 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
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
Cristiano: I can't say it for sure, since I am biased, but I found it useful when implementing node-wot. What about you, Jan?
Jan: 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?
Cristiano: Will open an issue to record that we should expand the appendix
Kaz: The appendix is probably the reason for the error, and we need to resolve the issue before publication
… will talk to the W3C web master to clarify if we can publish an updated note
… since it is a bug in ReSpec
Cristiano: (captures the discussion in a PR comment)
Zoltan: The reason we had the partial definitions were the different conformance classes we had defined
… the bug itself is not in the spec
… 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
Kaz: You can go ahead with merging this PR, I will talk to the web master based on it
… about the checker, you should create a dedicated issue
… which we can refer to with the web master
Cristiano: (creates a follow-up issue)
Kaz: We can talk about the errors separately with the web master or PLH
… you can simply copy Daniel's later comments
Cristiano: I will link Daniel's comment in the new issue (#480)
… I understood that the consensus is to merge this PR, any blockers or concerns?
… (merging)
PR 478
<cris_> PR 478 - Fix HTML issues
Cristiano: Then we have this PR by Daniel
… this PR also moves the fixes to the main document
… to prefer for publication
… is it okay to merge this one, Kaz?
Kaz: My question is when the document will be fixed and ready for publication
Cristiano: This PR fixes the main document, however, we could also wait with it after the publication process
… the fixes are very simple
Kaz: In that case we can merge the PR
… it is just using CSS styling instead of attributes, right?
Cristiano: Yes
Kaz: I am just wondering when the document will finally be ready, I am not happy with all of these small changes every day
Cristiano: After this PR we should be done, this is just a result of the document checker
Kaz: Then I am fine with merging, and we could start the publication process after this call
Cristiano: Exactly, are you also fine with merging, Zoltan?
Zoltan: I am
Cristiano: Then we can go ahead with merging this PR
… (merging)
Cristiano: After this PR, we can now close the call early
… any other business?
… we have a couple of issues, but I don't want to move ahead today
Next steps
Zoltan: It's fine, but we should move ahead with issues soon
Cristiano: There is a new issue by Luca, but we can discuss it in the next call
Zoltan: We can also comment on the issue offline
Cristiano: I agree, there is also no issue that requires critical discussion at the moment, except maybe issue 409
… what I would like to do is to categorize the issues and define a proper plan to move on
… next time
Zoltan: We should also discuss the schedule until the next publication
Cristiano: I agree, my only doubt is that this connects with the rechartering
… we need to discuss this more thoroghly, maybe over the course of a full meeting
… I would ask everyone to review the currently open issues
Zoltan: We should also review implementations and get feedback from implementors
… and define what we prioritize
Cristiano: (opens an issue regarding "Implementation status & feedback)
<cris_> w3c/
Cristiano: we should ping implementors, also besides node-wot and dart_wot
Jan: There is also a Python implementation, but it is outdated
Zoltan: I think we should also keep the issues under the "Spec-improvement" label in mind
Cristiano: We can continue working offline
… (shows issue 444 as an example)
Zoltan: I think this issue is done
Cristiano: We can close it next time
… (adds a comment to the issue)
Zoltan: We should link the PR that has resolved it, I will do so offline
Cristiano: The same probably applies to issue 443
Zoltan: Should also be fixed, will check it
Cristiano: Until next time, we will go through all the issues and prioritize them, and we should also try to get feedback from implementors
… with that in mind, I would close the call
[adjourned]