#1239: Other Spec Review: CRA web browser standard

Visit on Github

Opened Jun 16, 2026

We have a new full draft. Please review. It would be best if comments were delivered within 2-4 weeks via a labs issue, as Simone delivered previously. Apologies for this request being not well formatted.

Specification

https://labs.etsi.org/rep/stan4cra/en-304-617/-/blob/main_publish/EN-304-617.md?ref_type=heads

Explainer

https://

Links

  • Previous early design review, if any: https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/####
  • An introduction to the feature, aimed at unfamiliar audiences: https:// <!-- Can be the specification's or explainer's introduction, or another section. -->
  • A description of the problems that end-users were facing before this proposal: https:// <!-- See https://w3ctag.github.io/explainer-explainer/#end-user-need -->
  • Alternatives considered: https:// <!-- See https://w3ctag.github.io/explainer-explainer/#alternatives -->
  • Examples of how to use the proposal to solve the end-users' problems: https:// <!-- See https://w3ctag.github.io/explainer-explainer/#describe-proposal -->
  • What do the end-users experience with this proposal: https:// <!-- See https://w3ctag.github.io/explainer-explainer/#describe-proposal -->
  • User research you did to validate the problem and/or design, if any: https://
  • Web Platform Tests: <!-- Or other tests if this is not a web platform feature. -->

The specification

Where and by whom is the work is being done?

  • GitHub repo: https://labs.etsi.org/rep/stan4cra/en-304-617/-/blob/main_publish/EN-304-617.md?ref_type=heads
  • Primary contacts: Daniel Thompson (@denjell)
    • $name (@-mention), $organization/s, $role in developing specification
    • <!-- repeat as necessary, we recommend including group chairs and editors in this list -->
  • Organization/project driving the specification:
  • This work is being funded by:
  • Primary standards group developing this feature:
  • Group intended to standardize this work: <!-- if different from the current group -->
  • Incubation and standards groups that have discussed the design:
    • {{ABC CG}} <!-- Include a link to minutes or issues in this group if possible. -->
    • {{DEF WG}}

Please make comments in

https://labs.etsi.org/rep/stan4cra/en-304-617/-/work_items

Feedback so far

  • Multi-stakeholder feedback:
  • Major unresolved issues with or opposition to this specification:
  • Status/issue trackers for implementations: <!-- Include links to [Chrome Status](https://chromestatus.com/), [Mozilla's](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/), [WebKit's Bugzilla](https://bugs.webkit.org/), and trackers for other implementations if those are known to you. -->

You should also know that...

No response

<!-- Content below this is maintained by @w3c-tag-bot -->

Track conversations at https://tag-github-bot.w3.org/gh/w3ctag/design-reviews/1239

Discussions

Log in to see TAG-private discussions.

Discussed Jun 29, 2026 (See Github)

Heather: Did we decide this was out of scope, or we are unable to participate? Team working on it?

Yves: Simone worked on this from a security perspective.

Heather: Should we say this is individual participation only; not TAG?

Yves: Depends on scope of the review. If it's security related then it's better to have security people work on it.

Heather: So individual contribution is OK? But not TAG?

Yves: I think it would be hard for TAG to come to consensus?

Christian: Is it architectural? Or just definitions? What's the scope of the review request? The entire document?

Heather: Looks like.

Christian: It's very long. Not sure we can do this at all. Think we should decline it, stating we can't do it in that timeframe. I think it's within TAG's scope, but too long for us to process in the timeframe that remains.

Christian: Yves, could you check with the team if/how we can engage with this request, and what the scope is?

Yves: Yep

Christian: I'll send a response in the GitHub thread, and Yves is going to check on it within W3C.

Comment by @christianliebel Jul 1, 2026 (See Github)

@littledan Thanks for sending this to us. What is the expected scope of our review? The entire document, or specific sections?