Clarify normative, tentative, new Deliverables

[csarven]

• Further aligns the deliverables section with the charter-drafts template (#draft-status, adopted draft).
• Clarifies the pledged deliverables from adopting new deliverables based on incubated work (#tentative-deliverables), and minor editorial on integration and versioning.
• Reworks content from approved charters which had initially received Formal Objection (due to above point).
• Clarifies relationship between the WG and ongoing CG (#add-new-deliverables) and ties it with #w3c-coordination.

---

Preview | Diff

[elf-pavlik]

Based on the conversation during the meeting I think that this sentence still doesn't give clarity on how the WG plans to deal with normative references (hard dependencies). Given that for the spec to reach REC all the normative references have to be at most one maturity level behind if Solid Protocol has a hard dependency on any of the specs below, their delivery IMO can not depend on Solid CG progress. I think we need to decide on one of the two options:

• Solid Protocol will have a hard dependency on all of the specs below and all those will have to be delivered independently from CG progress.
• Solid Protocol can still be delivered without having a hard dependency on any of the specs below, in this case, the WG doesn't need to ensure that all of them will be delivered.

Possibly WG can commit to delivering Solid-OIDC, WAC & ACP and have them as normative dependencies/references in the Solid Protocol. Notifications could be initially proposed as an informative dependency/reference. If WG manages to get notifications to a sufficient maturity level it could also become a normative dependency.

[csarven]

Normative references in Solid Protocol, Version 0.10.0, that do not have a FPWD or later status at W3C:

• Solid-OIDC (Solid CG)
• WAC (Solid CG)
• ACP (Solid CG)
• Solid Notifications Protocol (Solid CG)
• WebID (WebID CG)
• N3 (Notation 3 CG)

As per Version 0.10.0, the Solid WG will have to work with the Solid, WebID, and Notation 3 CGs to ensure that those normative references are progressed as well.

Similarly, some of the normatively referenced IETF specifications may need to have a more mature status.

Other normatively referenced specifications include the Fetch specification by WHATWG which has the Living Standard status.

The mention of Solid CG was primarily about what's generally under the purview of the Solid CG, and not particularly about waiting for the Solid CG to deliver. If folks are so keen to have those work items mature, there has been absolutely nothing, and I mean nothing posed as a barrier in the CG. And, if so desired, they can be a deliverable of the WG pretty much overnight. It is evident that the work that needs to be done is a matter of commitment. If any editor/author of a CG work items is not committed, engaging, we can assign those that are committed. Including proper reviewing..

I have no objection to listing all of those normative references as deliverables but I suggest that we do not until requested by W3C.

That will give us some flexibility, if so needed, to adopt the Solid Protocol, and the declare new deliverables that accurately reflects it.

[csarven]

As per 2023-04-19 decision in https://github.com/solid/specification/blob/main/meetings/2023-04-19.md#clarify-normative-tentative-new-deliverables , this PR is pending @pchampin 's guidance.

[elf-pavlik]

I can capture unresolved parts in a new issue

[pchampin]

Looks good to me. Sorry for the lack of responsiveness.