Glossaries: a different pattern needed?

[cwilso]

In a WHATWG call (whatwg/html#10496 (comment)) we were discussing the need for definitive definitions of terms that have some weight, but maybe aren't a full-on REC-track kind of thing. In WHATWG-space, this is generally in the WHATWG Infrastructure spec: https://infra.spec.whatwg.org/. Unfortunately, right now there are some terms defined in Infra and also in the I18n Glossary (https://www.w3.org/TR/i18n-glossary/) - the I18n Glossary should really be the definitive source, but it's just a group draft note, because it's necessary to be a living document, relatively easily updated.

This issue is to pose the question - should we have some type of path for this kind of definition glossary that is easier to update than a CR. but more normative than just a Note? (a la the way we enabled a different path for registries).

[hober]

Can we re-use the registry track? What is a glossary, after all, besides a registry of terms and their definitions? :)

[plehegar]

Relates to w3c/guide#269

[frivoal]

I am the editor of an AB Draft Glossary: https://w3c.github.io/AB-public/Glossary
This may be the start of an answer to this question.

Can we re-use the registry track? What is a glossary, after all, besides a registry of terms and their definitions? :)

Possibly, especially if we allow groups other than WGs to maintain registries, as is proposed in #902.

[chaals]

I was once the editor of a W3C glossary too. Creating them is easy.

The important thing is to actually keep maintaining and using the same one.

The registry process seems good enough for this purpose.