Re: Extensibility for constraints and registry

On 26 Nov 2013 06:30, "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> * Martin Thomson wrote:
> >On 25 November 2013 02:08, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
wrote:
> >> I don't recommend it.
> >
> >I think that Dom is pointing out that the W3C analogue of "IETF
> >review" is appropriate here, and draws the conclusion that updating
> >specs isn't impossible, even outside of this group (when we ultimately
> >disband, others can take over).  I'm not 100% sure that this is the
> >bar we need here, but it certainly seems to be the case that open
> >season isn't going to get us sensible results.
>
> Dominique's proposal is "Expert Review" with Tim Berners-Lee as the
> Designated Expert under a process as determined by Tim Berners-Lee.

Have you even discussed this with Tim? He might have a different process in
mind. Has any W3C employee been asked to provide a suggestion for an
appropriate process for registering new constraints?

> "IETF review" is completely different from that. Anyone can publish
> an Internet-Draft, no membership or other fees required, no need to
> convince any Working Group to accept a proposal, and whether a pro-
> posal finds consensus is not ultimately determined by one person.

Even for mime type registrations, there is a requirement on what the spec
for a new like type has to include and what format the name is allowed to
have. I don't think we have reached that level of understanding of
constraints yet. Is like to get us there before we put a process and
registry in place.

Silvia.

> If "IETF review" would be appropriate here, then the Working Group,
> by all means, should use that.
> --
> Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
> Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
> 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
>