Re: Extensibility for constraints and registry

On 11/21/2013 09:13 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
>
> My concrete proposal to replace what is currently in the spec would be
> thus:
> * remove the IANA registry registration from the spec
> * remove mentions of the registry in the spec
> * add a note to implementors in the spec encouraging them to bring
> proposals of new constraints to this group, and to not make new
> constraints available publicly (i.e. without a flag) until two
> independent implementations of such a constraint have surfaced
> (mimicking the CSS WG policy)

Dom,

this assumes:

a) the continued existence of this group
b) the ability of this group to provide output documents of some form 
that are either minor riffs of existing documents (with new constraints 
added) or very trivial documents that have to be processed by the W3C 
mechanisms (which only define the constraints).

These considerations, seen in action over the last 20 years or so, are 
the ones that have led the IETF to almost universal reliance on IANA for 
new protocol parameter registration.

I appreciate that one can imagine that the group takes it on itself to 
exist and do the process in b) until the day it decides to produce some 
"final spec" reassigning this task to IANA (or perhaps deciding that 
there will be no new constraints registered, ever), and that it does not 
get to close down before that time.

But I want to make sure the group knows what it has to sign up for in 
that case.
I don't recommend it.


>
> Dom
>
> 1. http://www.w3.org/2013/11/14-mediacap-minutes.html#item07
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 25 November 2013 10:09:07 UTC