Re: Advancing our Registry Drafts on the Registry Track

Hi Francois,

Looks good to me, generally. One thing I'd change is this sentence:

> By definition, registries document values, they do not
define any architectural or interoperability requirements related to
those values.

I don't think "interoperability" is right here. Suggest:

s/interoperability/normative

In fact the presence of common values in a registry _does_ help interoperability, by definition.
That's what it's for!

I think changing to "normative" brings it more closely into line with the Process requirements too, though I forget if that uses the term "substantive" or "normative" - either would work.

Nigel



On 16/07/2026, 12:10, "Francois Daoust" <fd@w3.org <mailto:fd@w3.org>> wrote:


External: Think before clicking


Hello Media Working Group participants,


The group maintains a number of registries on the Registry Track [1].
These registries are currently published as Registry Drafts. In order to
advance these documents on the Registry Track and publish them as
Candidate Registry Snapshots, we need to solicit wide review of these
documents.


Registries document values and do not define normative requirements
related to those values. It is not entirely clear what horizontal review
groups might be interested in reviewing in registry documents (we'll be
the first W3C group to request such reviews in practice).


I'm proposing to send the documents in bulk to the horizontal review
groups along with the note copied below. Let me know if you have comments!


Side note: publishing registries as Candidate Registry Snapshots does
not prevent adding more entries to the table. It just makes the
registration entry requirements more stable.


Thanks,
François


[1] https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#registries <https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#registries>


-----
The Media Working Group maintains registries related to some of its
specifications on the Recommendation track, namely Media Source
Extensions (MSE), Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) and WebCodecs. The
registries are published on the Registry Track as Registry Drafts. The
Media Working Group would like to advance these documents on the
Registry Track by publishing them as Candidate Registry Snapshot.


We're taking the liberty to request a review of all the registries at
once and without further analysis because the registries all have
similar registration entry requirements, and because it isn't clear to
us what input you might be willing to receive to help your review of
such documents. By definition, registries document values, they do not
define any architectural or interoperability requirements related to
those values. We would expect comments on these requirements to be
raised against the underlying specifications (MSE, EME, WebCodecs).


Registry linked to MSE:
- Media Source Extensions Byte Stream Format Registry:
https://www.w3.org/TR/mse-byte-stream-format-registry/ <https://www.w3.org/TR/mse-byte-stream-format-registry/>


Registries linked to EME:
- Encrypted Media Extensions Initialization Data Format Registry:
https://www.w3.org/TR/eme-initdata-registry/ <https://www.w3.org/TR/eme-initdata-registry/>


- Encrypted Media Extensions Stream Format Registry:
https://www.w3.org/TR/eme-stream-registry/ <https://www.w3.org/TR/eme-stream-registry/>


- Encrypted Media Extensions HDCP Version Registry:
https://www.w3.org/TR/eme-hdcp-version-registry/ <https://www.w3.org/TR/eme-hdcp-version-registry/>


Registries linked to WebCodecs:
- WebCodecs Codec Registry:
https://www.w3.org/TR/webcodecs-codec-registry/ <https://www.w3.org/TR/webcodecs-codec-registry/>


- WebCodecs VideoFrame Metadata Registry:
https://www.w3.org/TR/webcodecs-video-frame-metadata-registry/ <https://www.w3.org/TR/webcodecs-video-frame-metadata-registry/>


Note: Most of the registries related to MSE and EME used to be published
on the Note track (simply because the Registry track did not exist at
the time of publication).

Received on Thursday, 16 July 2026 11:27:48 UTC