Meeting minutes
Agenda
<kaz> agenda for today
Koster: there are some priorities
… like refactoring
<kaz> [ Refactoring (Binding to TD), Small PRs, if time left: Resource Management and Registry Requirements ]
Minutes
<kaz> Apr-18
Koster: if you see something, shout out
Koster: any comments on the minutes?
Koster: minutes are approved
Refactoring
Koster: So you have a PR on it right?
Ege: yes we have PR 2000 that makes the move
… also a small PR on binding templates
PR 360 in Bindings
<kaz> Binding PR 360 - Header Alignment
<kaz> diff
Ege: I had to clean up some headers. I think we should be careful with simple HTML formatting stuff
Koster: ok I see
Kaz: Let's look at the diff version
Luca: changes are fine, please merge
… I think we will solve this issue when we adopt markdown and use bikeshed to turn things into html
Koster: so it won't be an issue going forward
… so let's quickly go over it
… ok so it looks good
Kaz: from respec point of view, it is not an issue
… from html point of view, it is good to change that. BTW, regarding the extra subsection title for introductory text, it was jus our chosen style was redundant.
Ege: it was rendering fine but it was wrong in the beginning
Koster: let's merge this PR
PR 2000 in TD
<kaz> TD PR 2000 - Binding mechanism refactoring
<kaz> diff
Koster: so all the headers got shifted
… otherwise nothing else has changed at this moment
Ege: I think I should have checked the references since now all references became informative
… I can change the references
Kaz: I am fine with the PR as is and we can do small changes after merging this
… since it is just the first PR
Ege: we can open issues now for the follow up points
Koster: merged
Issue 1987 for TD
<kaz> TD Issue 1987 - Moving Binding Mechanism Text to TD
Ege: maybe we can close this issue and then create another issue for follow-up
… btw, we need to discuss how to handle the appendix of the Binding Templates spec
Appendix B. Examples of Payloads and Data Schemas from IoT Platforms and Standards
Koster: let's see the appendix
Koster: so only the 3 example pairs are missing
Koster: should we create an issue
Ege: yes otherwise I will forget
TD Issue 2005 - Add Appendix B from the Binding Templates document to the merged TD document
Ege: let's see the project also
Ege: Issue 2005 is listed on the "Categorized" column
Ege: then we can categorize and assign
Ege: after assigning the issue to me, we can move it to the "Assigned" column
… then the "In Progress" column
Ege: since I know that I can work on it
Koster: Ok we can move back to the other issues
Koster: then we can create new issue for the overlaps
<kaz> TD Issue 2006 - Fix overlaps between TD and Bindings content
Binding Core Document
<kaz> TD Issue 1987 - Moving Binding Mechanism Text to TD
Koster: We will create other documents for registry and policy
Ege: we can delete it or turn into a registry definition
Koster: yeah or the registry can be in the TD
… what are the tradeoffs between having the registry in the TD or binding template
… having it in the TD will make the TD longer
<kaz> FYI, Registry section of "TTML Media Type Definition and Profile Registry" Note
Luca: the TD document may end up being way too big
… on the other hand, the protocol binding and registry should be a small section
… if you want to write a binding, you have to be aware of TD
… so there is no separation of concerns
Kaz: I tend to agree with luca
… starting separately would be fine in the beginning
… separating them would be easier to manage
… we can change later as well
Luca: there is no real pros or cons, there will be an entry point
… it depends on how intense the whole section will be
<kaz> FYI (again), Registry section of "TTML Media Type Definition and Profile Registry" Note
<kaz> https://
Ege: there can be issues with having a coupling between td version and a binding
… it is easier to manage that if the registry is in a td document
… probably we need to agree on how the registry table looks like first
Kaz: basically, agree but we can make decision about "how to describe the registry mechanism" later, and we should clarify our requirements first
… for that purpose, we can take a look at the TTWG's work again.
Luca: if we have td 3.0, all the bindings will need to get updated
… so there needs to be a registry per td spec version
Ege: I think we can agree that the binding core document will be empty or non-existent if the binding registry lives in the TD spec
Koster: aob?
Koster: no call on wednesday, we meet next week thursday
<kaz> [adjourned]