[question] How to send images (contenttype:image/jpeg)

[egekorkan]

How can I create a property with a contenttype equal to image/jpeg? In general, is there a way to change the contenttype of the created forms?

[mkovatsc]

This is more a topic for https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues

[egekorkan]

I have commented on the issue #112 of the scripting api specification.

[danielpeintner]

@egekorkan can we close this issue given that w3c/wot-scripting-api#112 is closed too?

[egekorkan]

Actually, I have written another issue in the scripting API ( 156 ). The ambiguity is the fact that the scripting API says to accept a TD for the expose method but actually the algorithm should decide how to init the exposed thing. In this case it is not clear whether not having this feature is the "fault" of node-wot or scripting API

[egekorkan]

From the discussion in Scripting API on issue 156, at the moment it is up to the implementation to figure out how to interpret the form field of a given TD for the produce() method. This means that we can (and I think we should) use the information provided in the form field. At the moment it is completely ignored.

[danielpeintner]

@egekorkan any update?

[egekorkan]

Nothing from my side...

[egekorkan]

There is also a need/usecase for this by @jenlincode

[sebastiankb]

I think the produce() should provide a way to override the default assumptions in node-wot (also in forms). E.g.,

WoT.produce({
		"@context": "https://www.w3.org/2019/wot/td/v1",
		title: "camera",
		properties: {
			myPhote: {
				description: "Latest cached photo",
				readOnly: true
				forms: [{contentType:"image/jpeg"}]
			}

The contentType provided in forms should override the default application/json in node-wot.

[relu91]

If no one is on this issue, I could give a hand and propose an implementation for merging form configurations with the defaults. I am wondering what will happen if the codec for the contentType specified in the form is not defined? Should we raise an error immediately?

[egekorkan]

There is #187 so I would wait the progress there :)

[danielpeintner]

Thanks @relu91,

as @egekorkan mentioned I did started exploring a bit how it could be done.

It seems a bit hacky so please comment or make suggestions in the PR #187

[danielpeintner]

PR #187 merged