2023 note2 updates2

[danielpeintner]

Preview

NOTE: All (some?) of the fixes should go into the main note as well in a follow-up PR

fixes #475

[danielpeintner]

Note: I fixed all HTML errors expect one that appears often "Duplicate ID idl-def-wot."

I think it comes from the WebIDL and I am not sure how to fix that... shall we just remove the other IDs? I am pretty sure that breaks things...

[danielpeintner]

@ashimura the remaining issue with duplicate id "idl-def-wot" is coming from ReSpec. We in our html do not create this ID, please have a look at https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/blob/main/index.html. You will not find "idl-def-wot"..

It comes from the WebIdl where we use partial namespace WOT like in

partial namespace WOT {
  Promise<ConsumedThing> consume(ThingDescription td);
};

or

partial namespace WOT {
  Promise<ExposedThing> produce(ExposedThingInit init);
};

or

partial namespace WOT {
  Promise<ThingDiscoveryProcess> exploreDirectory(USVString url,
      optional ThingFilter filter = {});
};

How can we move on?
@zolkis can we define it differently?

EDIT: Can/shall we open a ReSpec bug report?

[zolkis]

Those definitions are correct, according to https://webidl.spec.whatwg.org/#dfn-partial-namespace

But we can also collate all those definitions in the first one, i.e. without any partial definitions.

[danielpeintner]

I created https://github.com/w3c/respec/issues/4447, maybe there is a simple solution/fix for it.

[relu91]

Call 22/05/2023:

• @ashimura can talk with the webmaster and move ahead with the publication. Nonetheless, in the future, we need to fix the error (in respec) or re-evaluate the usage of partial definition. Note that in the Full WebIDL, we have a bunch of partial definitions that are not really needed (we can define everything in the single namespace).
• we are merging this for now.