On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 12:27 PM Michael Champion < Michael.Champion@microsoft.com> wrote: > Several are registries. We've been treating Registries as a subtype of > ER, but discussion in https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/79 makes me > wonder if just creating a "registry" type that has more authority than a > Note but not the overhead of Recommendation or even ER is good enough to > solve the problem. After all, do Registries really need implementer > support, patent commitments, horizontal review, etc.? If they do, I agree > that making them type of ER makes sense but if not, do we really need to > solve the numerous ER issues to create Registries as first-class working > group products? > I've added Dan Burnett, co-chair of W3C Verifiable Claims WG, specifically as they have requested that the W3C Credentials CG (which helped start the VCWG) manage the ongoing work of various registries required for maintenance of the VCWG after it reaches CR and closes (which will hopefully happen soon). The CCG community has currently agreed to take these registries on, but they don't quite fit into our more easy-going processes. We don't believe that we can submit them to IANA or other registry bodies either. I personally think that registries may be sufficiently different from Evergreen Standards that considering a different process for them may be warranted. -- Christopher Allen, co-chair W3C Credentials Community Group
Received on Monday, 20 May 2019 21:55:28 UTC