Re: Advancing our Registry Drafts on the Registry Track

Oh well then I stand corrected!

The rest of the paragraph in the Process is important though. But happy to keep your wording, and maybe there's a separate issue for me to raise against that wording in the Process.

The wording I was thinking of was related to classes of change.

Nigel

________________________________
From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Sent: 16 July 2026 1:13 PM
To: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>; public-media-wg@w3.org <public-media-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Advancing our Registry Drafts on the Registry Track

External: Think before clicking

Hi Nigel,

On 2026-07-16 13:27, Nigel Megitt wrote:
> 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!

Fine changing the wording.

>
> 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.

Well, the Process document uses "interoperability" ;)

I had lazily copied the sentence from the Process document in particular:
https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#reg-ref-specifications


Thanks,
François.

>
> 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).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>