Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

HTTP Binding to TD Alignment #380

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 17, 2024
Merged

HTTP Binding to TD Alignment #380

merged 1 commit into from
Oct 17, 2024

Conversation

egekorkan
Copy link
Contributor

@egekorkan egekorkan commented Oct 8, 2024

As mentioned in w3c/wot-thing-description#1259 (comment), I am starting the work to move the missing content here. I am copying the comment content below and marking them if they are already addressed in the PR. Some points require discussion and this comment will be updated as the PR is updated.

  • 1. TD mentions the default inclusion of the HTTP vocabulary in the TD Context. We need to discuss if we should continue doing this.
  • 2. TD mentions the default mechanism with an assertion When no method is indicated in a form representing an Protocol Binding based on HTTP, a Default Value MUST be assumed as shown in the following table. This should be moved to HTTP Binding document. I have thought of having a generic assertion about this but we would test each binding on its own and should have a corresponding assertion in each document. -> There is no assertion but the text is moved
  • 3. TD default values table have methods in the first column with multiple operations on the right cell. The way it is done in the binding makes more sense to me, i.e. mapping an operation to the method.
  • 4. TD has an example that shows default values insertion
  • 5. TD has an assertion (but not RFC!) saying In the case of a forms entry that has multiple op values the usage of the htv:methodName is not permitted. This should be turned to a real assertion in binding and also should be mentioned in a generic way in the binding registry as it applies to all protocols. This also has a corresponding interactive example. -> There is no assertion but the text is moved
  • 6. Binding has fieldName and fieldValue in the vocabulary term table. This should be kept.
  • 7. Binding has sequence diagram examples. I see some issues with WebSocket examples since an unsubscription is not necessarily disconnecting the connection. Otherwise they are fine.
  • 8. Binding refers to TD1.0 REC instead of 1.1

Otherwise, I have done the following:

  • Add checkbox code
  • Add conformance section
  • Add terminology section

Copy link

netlify bot commented Oct 8, 2024

Deploy Preview for wot-binding-templates ready!

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit 5d3bc20
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/sites/wot-binding-templates/deploys/6705999a9722f20008548b0d
😎 Deploy Preview https://deploy-preview-380--wot-binding-templates.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile
Toggle QR Code...

QR Code

Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

@egekorkan
Copy link
Contributor Author

egekorkan commented Oct 10, 2024

I will keep it open for a couple of days, but there were no concerns raised in the call of 10th of October.

@egekorkan egekorkan merged commit 07230b7 into main Oct 17, 2024
3 checks passed
@egekorkan egekorkan deleted the ege-http-aligment branch October 17, 2024 12:07
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant