Meeting minutes
Slideset: https://
Logistics
<Ege> https://
ek: slides above
… co-Charing this session with Jan Romann
ek: please join the IRC, and add yourself using "q+"
<Ege> ah thanks
Intro
atsushi
enrico
klaus
ramon
toumura
nigel
mizushima
xiaoqian
kaz
Participation policies
ek: remember the Antitrust/competition plicy
… also PWETF work
Bringing some context
ek: (explain the background)
What is a registry in general?
ek: Examples
… media types, URI schemes, websocket, language subtag, etc.
Registries and W3C RECs?
ek: W3C RECs can't be changed after publication
… so need another mechanism for registries
ek: Why are we here?
… share the analysis
… and get input
ek: analysis by WoT
… want to have a binding registry as written in the Charter
… W3C registry mechanism is very open
… several registries already
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
(switch to Jan)
jr: IANA registries
… several examples
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
jr: W3C Notes before the Registry Track
… e.g., DID, XPointer, Media Source Extensions, TTML
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)
ek: W3C reports with official registry mechanism
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
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
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
Discussion
<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
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!
Summary
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
[adjourned]