How best to indicate a Registry section in a Rec track document?

Has there been any work on specific text or formatting for indicating sections of Rec track documents that are Registry Sections, as per https://www.w3.org/2023/Process-20231103/#reg-pub ? Not sure if this is a question for the ProcessCG, but it feels like an editing question initially.

In particular, things that occurred to me while preparing https://github.com/w3c/dapt/pull/196 :


  *   It seems like a good idea to mention in the SOTD that the document contains a Registry Section – I wrote my own additional text, but maybe it would be better to have common wording, and an additional value in Respec’s config specStatus value to support the conditional inclusion of that wording.


  *   The Process wording seems to allow for a single Registry Section, but structurally, it would be better to put the Registry Tables inline in the document in the place where they appear. I’m going to assume that it’s okay to do that, but when doing so, it would be a service to the reader if there were some indication that the table is subject to change outside the normal Rec track update process. Hence this email!


  *   (maybe a Respec question) Sometimes it’s helpful to insert into the document values that derive from the Respec config, but it isn’t straightforward to do that. I created a clunky post-processing function for Respec to replace values in elements with specific class names, but it’s ugly. In this case I wanted to put in to the Registry Definition that the mechanism for asking for a change is to raise an issue on the version control system (aka repository), and link to it. The URL for the GitHub repo is information that Respec knows, so I wanted to insert that as a value into href attributes wherever they appeared.


Any suggestions appreciated!

Nigel