solid26: placeholder for access-control language pending CG consensus#785
solid26: placeholder for access-control language pending CG consensus#785
Conversation
Adds a top-of-document warning banner and replaces the WAC/ACP content in §2 with placeholders marked 'subject to discussion before inclusion': - §SOTD: warning banner pointing at the affected sections and #783. - §2 specifications table: WAC version cell becomes 'Subject to discussion before inclusion'; new ACP row added with the same. - TOC: §2.4 Access Control Policy added; WebID 1.0 and Solid WebID Profile renumbered to §2.5/2.6. - §2.1 Solid Protocol commentary: WAC-encouragement bullet, the March 2026 survey note, and the architectural-separation bullet are removed and replaced with a one-line pointer to §2.3 / §2.4. - §2.3 Web Access Control: content replaced with a 'subject to discussion before inclusion' warning, pointing at PR #783. - §2.4 Access Control Policy (new): same placeholder structure. Allows the wider Solid26 launch to proceed without holding on the unresolved WAC/ACP wording. Once #783 reaches consensus, this placeholder branch will be replaced with the agreed text.
Keep the architectural-separation guidance for Clients managing access controls; only the WAC/ACP-encouragement bullet and the March 2026 survey note remain replaced by the placeholder.
Visual consistency with the placeholders in §2.3 and §2.4.
The W3C base stylesheet styles .note and .issue but not .warning, so the previous placeholders rendered without a visual box. Switch all four to class="issue". Also broaden the top-of-doc banner: state explicitly that the whole document is a draft so all parts may change, with the highlighted 'subject to discussion' sections (§Web Access Control and §Access Control Policy) at primary risk.
uvdsl
left a comment
uvdsl
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Either the document will be published reflecting CG consensus or it will not be published. Adding such a note of missing consensus (in-fact even agreement), while declaring that it is published by the W3C Solid CG, is a contradiction.
This document is not yet published and is proposed as a PR where editing is actively taking place. It is a work in progress, that is quite apparent.
If you want to publish this document, then it is you (or an organization) who publishes the document. That published document MUST NOT declare that it is published or even endorsed by the CG because it is not. The proposed change is unfit to for that purpose.
From the description of this PR, I don't quite grasp the goal here? Could you clarify?
I note that this PR tries to add in ACP as a recommended access control language here again, which is unnecessary (as a different PR tries to do that already) and not reflecting agreement of the group (#783 (comment)).
|
I was of the understanding that the CG was not at consensus on the text around access control -- for the reasons that @elf-pavlik just identified on the mailing list (see below). The goal of this PR is to have a draft copy of the document that we are all comfortable pointing people to for the duration of this week; by omitting those topics still under discussion. I will make some suggested changes removing text that implies this document is published. This PR does not even need to be merged. I just would like to have a document where the preview link (https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/solid/specification/blob/feat/solid26-access-control-placeholder/solid26.html) contains text we can agree on.
It adds it with a note that the section could be removed from the spec; since there is not currently consensus on whether or not it would be in. |
2 participants
A preview link can be found here.
Purpose
Replaces the WAC/ACP content in §2 with placeholder text marked "subject to discussion before inclusion" so the wider Solid26 launch can proceed without holding on the unresolved access-control-language wording. The proposed access-control-language text itself is being worked on in #783 and will land here once consensus is reached.
What's in this PR
class="issue"placeholder boxes pointing at solid26: draft WAC/ACP wording for CG discussion #783.Review
@uvdsl as co-editor most directly affected by the placeholder approach — does this shape work for you, or want to adjust before we land it?
Test plan
solid26.htmland confirm the fourclass="issue"boxes (top-of-doc banner, §2.1 bullet, §2.3, §2.4) render visually distinct.