Consider non-spec status or category

[dontcallmedom]

Because web-specs feeds webref which feeds "spec" authoring tools, we end up incorporate documents that aren't really specifications (i.e. define interoperable behaviors); I think it's a reasonable trade-off (despite the name of the package), but it would probably be useful to start annotating these entries one way or another to facilitate potential usage targeted at proper specs.

One idea is to re-use the category property, which at the moment is somewhat of a proxy to "class of implementation" (so could have a dedicated "no implementation" value).

[tidoust]

There may be a chicken and egg issue here but it would be good to be driven by usage scenarios so that we create the appropriate categories. Roughly speaking, we know of:

1. the "browser" scenario (all specs that target implementation in browsers); and
2. the "authoring" scenario (all specs for which we need definitions/headings to appear in the cross-references database)

First one is handled through the "browser" category, second one is all non discontinued entries in the list. That seems worky enough for the time being. I'm totally fine with a "no implementation" category. I'm just wondering what tools may need that, and whether that's the right categorization for what they may want to do.

[dontcallmedom]

yes, I agree this needs more concrete customers - I titled this as a "consider…" issue mostly to file my train of thoughts. I have some vague scenarios in mind, but nothing quite concrete yet.