Registries for W3C Specifications

12 March 2024


atsushi, Atsushi_Shimono, Ege, Ege_Korkan, Enrico_Morisi, Jan_ROmann, JKRhb, J-Y_Rossi, Kaz_Ashimura, Klaus_Hartke, Kunihiko_Toumura, Nigel_Megitt, Peter_Bruhn_Andersen, Ramon, RJN, Tomoaki_Mizushima, xiaoqian, Xiaoqian_Wu

Meeting minutes

Slideset: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1zWnl7yWMKPjKgtjogZGDe-8xf4KTK3KakhPY0_uhsB4/edit?pli=1#slide=id.p (PDF version)


<Ege> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1zWnl7yWMKPjKgtjogZGDe-8xf4KTK3KakhPY0_uhsB4/edit?usp=sharing

ek: slides above
… co-Charing this session with Jan Romann

ek: please join the IRC, and add yourself using "q+"

<Ege> ah thanks











Participation policies

ek: remember the Antitrust/competition plicy
… also PWETF work

Bringing some context

ek: (explain the background)

What is a registry in general?

[Slide 6]

ek: Examples
… media types, URI schemes, websocket, language subtag, etc.

Registries and W3C RECs?

[Slide 7]

ek: W3C RECs can't be changed after publication
… so need another mechanism for registries

[Slide 8]

ek: Why are we here?
… share the analysis
… and get input

[Slide 9]

ek: analysis by WoT
… want to have a binding registry as written in the Charter
… W3C registry mechanism is very open
… several registries already

[Slide 10]

ek: What did the WoT do?
… analyzed both W3C process and IANA process

nm: two ways for registries
… separate doc or embedded in a REC

<nigel> Example of Registry section in DAPT

nm: an example of registry section above

ek: yeah, we're aware of that fact
… but tx for the concrete example

[Slide 11]

(switch to Jan)

[Slide 12]

jr: IANA registries
… several examples

[Slide 13]

jr: summary is
… quite mature with various rules commonly accepted
… with extensibility
… several common review policies there
… private use, experimental use, hierarchical allocation, first come/first sered, expert review, spec required, RFC required, IETF review, standard action, IESG approval
… example of URI schemes and websockets sub-protocols

[Slide 14]

jr: W3C Notes before the Registry Track
… e.g., DID, XPointer, Media Source Extensions, TTML

[Slide 15]

jr: summary
… various processes, consensus as the goal
… various entry formats
… deletion/deprecation process
… versioning mechanism is missing?
… instead, deprecation and resubmission of new entry?

(switches back to Ege)

[Slide 17]

ek: W3C reports with official registry mechanism

[Slide 18]

ek: summary:
… confirmation that the registry mechanism works
… close collaboration with external communities and SDOs
… not much in common between WebCodecs and AAC
… can be a section in a REC

[Slide 19]

ek: comparison table
… submission process, modification process, review and guidelines
… about IANA, W3C Custom Registries and W3C Official Registries

kaz: do you mean "Notes, etc." by "W3C Custom", and "Registry Track" by "W3C Official"?

ek: yes

[Slide 20]

ek: Summary of status at W3C
… Registry Track mechanism is still very open
… and need considerations by each WG
… more information exchange expected with other WGs


<Zakim> nigel, you wanted to mention TTWG boilerplate

TTWG boilerplate

<nigel> TTWG Boilerplate registry code

<nigel> TTWG Registry discussion

nm: boilerplate and discussions above

nm: goes through the registry document html

HTML preview (not well-styled)

Dubbing and Audio description Profiles of TTML2 - G. Registry

nm: might be useful for people
… the process require specific actions

4.8 Script Event Type

ek: good resource
… this boilerplate would be a good approach

nm: there is a guide to help people understand the process
… this can be an example
… other people may discover issues, though

ek: don't think we should impose our need directly into this
… btw, ReSpec doesn't support this mechanism?

nm: right
… I created this styling approach

Nigel shows the table right above Example 24

nm: probably my best solution so far
… somebody could think about W3C official styling and ReSpec/Bikeshed tooling
… for example, other tables like the one at section 3 doesn't use the same style

kaz: tx for your information
… WoT also needs to clarify our requirements for WoT Binding Templates

xw: strong +1 for information exchange
… to get suggestions
… also agree having discussion with the Process CG would be helpful

ek: ok. tx!


[Slide 21]

ek: took some notes on the slide
… would like to check out the next steps
… main points of discussion, consensus or disagreement?
… think there was consensus on more exchange with other WGs
… should talk with the Process CG?

nm: note that PLH is managing the /Guide page

ek: should be incorporated with that

kaz: you mean the usage of registries and guidelines for them to be incorporated with the /Guide page?

ek: exactly
… registry sections to be included in the TR search results

ek: who to work on what then?

kaz: probably I should bring this result back to PLH and the Strategy/Project Team

ACTION: kaz to bring the results from the registries breakout session to PLH and the Strategy Team

ek: example of a registry section within a REC?
… what's the trade-off?

nm: it's easy to update the table. no approval is needed
… values to have the registry information in the REC

ek: (skims the check-out slide again)

kaz: possible item 3 for "What are the next steps?" should be WoT WG ourselves to clarify our requirements :)

ek: right


Summary of action items

  1. kaz to bring the results from the registries breakout session to PLH and the Strategy Team
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 222 (Sat Jul 22 21:57:07 2023 UTC).