Following discussion of the practicalities of including Registries in Rec track documents at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/spec-prod/2023OctDec/0003.html it seems like there may be a Process bug regarding the process for updating Registry Definitions.
§6.5.2 says that registry sections are "purely documentational". What does this actually mean? I initially read it as being "informative", or alternatively "can be changed outside the normal Rec track document process" but §6.5.1 requires that every registry table has a defined change process.
It would be absurd to require a strict process for how to change a registry data table but then allow that process itself to be modifiable without its own change process; I doubt that's the intention, but it seems to be the effect at the moment.
Another observation is that §6.5.2 refers to a singular Registry Section, but practically, as per w3c/dapt#196 for example, within a Rec track report incorporating registries, it makes sense to split the components of the Registries into different sections. Large parts of the definitions section are best placed away from the registry data tables themselves, which are best placed in the sections of the specification where they're used and relevant, because they're easier to read there.
So some attention is needed to check if the Process gets the cardinality of each type of section right.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4