adding IANA considerations section #1154
Conversation
|
Marked as non-substantive for IPR from ash-nazg. |
|
first attempt at resolving #1134. |
| @@ -2050,6 +2050,36 @@ spec: webappsec-referrer-policy; urlPrefix: https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-refe | |||
| </section> | |||
|
|
|||
| <section> | |||
| <h2 id="iana-considerations">IANA Considerations</h2> | |||
|
|
|||
| <p>The following registrations are for community review and will be submitted to the <a href="https://www.ietf.org/iesg/">IESG</a> for review, approval, and registration with <a href="https://www.iana.org/">IANA</a>.</p> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Will this part of the section need to be changed or replaced when the fields are registered to IANA?
| <li>Applicable Protocol: Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)</li> | ||
| <li>Status: Standard</li> | ||
| <li>Author/Change controller: W3C</li> | ||
| <li>Specification document(s): https://www.w3.org/TR/service-workers-1/</li> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure which document it should point to. Service Workers 1 is a snapshot of Service Workers which is a living document.
|
On 2017-05-29 12:51, Jungkee Song wrote:
***@***.**** commented on this pull request.
Will this part of the section need to be changed or replaced when the
fields are registered to IANA?
not really. the language is always a bit odd because it is both a
request for registration and announces the fact that a registration has
been made (after the spec is stable and published).
|
|
On 2017-05-29 12:54, Jungkee Song wrote:
***@***.**** commented on this pull request.
+ <li>Header Field Name: Service-Worker</li>
+ <li>Applicable Protocol: Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)</li>
+ <li>Status: Standard</li>
+ <li>Author/Change controller: W3C</li>
+ <li>Specification document(s): https://www.w3.org/TR/service-workers-1/</li>
Not sure which document it should point to. Service Workers 1 is a
snapshot of Service Workers which is a living document.
from the IETF point of view a stable document would be preferable. i
guess in principle what's really required is a stable definition, and
stable documents simply are a good proxy for that. is there any
precedence in documents that are both W3C and WHATWG? maybe at least
shoot for consistency...
|
|
On 2017-05-29 12:59, Jungkee Song wrote:
Thanks @dret <https://github.com/dret>!
Could you please work on docs/index.bs instead of docs/v1/index.bs?
Also, it'd be great you could use markdown format as we do for new
content. If you prefer HTML, that'd be still okay.
sorry! will do, i tried to find the right document to work on and
apparently made the wrong choice.
|
Okay.
No. There are only W3C documents.
Sorry if the guide was not clear. Thanks for your understanding. |
|
Service Workers Nightly should be referenced; the registration/header-defining portions are stable, and this ensures that any bugfixes are present. |
|
To be clear -- the document's contents don't need to be "stable" (i.e., unchanging); only the means of referencing it (the URL). And worst case, that can be updated. |
|
Okay. In that case, https://w3c.github.io/ServiceWorker/ (Nightly) would make sense. |
starting work on #1134