Can we cite user agents in normative specs?

[marcoscaceres]

During the last TAG F2F (minutes), we identified that this document's Note status may prevent other specs from citing it normatively. Informative-only citation is not an acceptable workaround — normative citation is the goal.

Two paths exist under the current W3C Process:

1. Elevate to W3C Statement (§6.4.3) — but the Process says: "A Note specifying implementable technology should not be elevated to W3C Statement status; if it does, the request to publish as a Statement must include rationale for why it should be elevated, and why it is not on the Recommendation track." That is, if the document describes things user agents should actually do, W3C expects it to justify why it isn't on the full standards track. This document's duties (protection, honesty, loyalty) likely meet that bar.

2. Move to Recommendation track — the only path that clearly triggers Patent Policy RF licensing. The Patent Policy (§2) scopes "Specification" to Rec Track only; it predates the Statement track entirely, leaving a coverage gap.

Questions for W3C Legal and/or the Process CG:

• Does this document specify "implementable technology" per §6.4.3?
• Is Statement status sufficient for normative citation, or is Rec track required?
• Does Patent Policy RF coverage extend to normatively referenced Statements?

Note: The minutes cited language from a superseded Process version — my mistake. The current §6.4.1 is less restrictive. W3C: please add canonical URL hints to old Process versions so search engines stop surfacing them. 🙏

[marcoscaceres]

Plan of action

1. Elevate this document to W3C Statement (§6.4.3). When filing the elevation request, include the explicit rationale required by the Process: this document describes behavioral norms and definitions for user agents, not patentable technical implementations — which is why it doesn't belong on the Recommendation track.

2. File a request with the Patent Policy Interest Group to bring W3C Statements explicitly into Patent Policy scope. The Patent Policy (last revised 2025-05-15) defines "Specification" as Recommendation Track only and is silent on Statements entirely — a gap that predates the Statement track. W3C Statements now require wide review and AC endorsement, yet carry no RF licensing obligations. This affects every future Statement, not just this document.

3. Consult W3C Legal on whether, in the interim, a normative reference from a Rec-track spec to a W3C Statement creates any meaningful patent exposure in practice — and whether tooling (Bikeshed/ReSpec) should be updated to permit normative references to Statements.

Note: This document is intended to eventually replace the WHATWG Infra definition of "user agent," which W3C Recommendation-track specs already reference normatively. It would be an odd outcome if a W3C TAG document had less normative authority than the external document it is meant to supersede.

Resolving this issue unblocks the broader migration work tracked in #48.

[jyasskin]

@plehegar, do you have a sense of the right W3C-side people to send this question to? I can send an email, but I'm not sure who should get it. The basic question is whether Recommendations will be able to use https://www.w3.org/TR/web-user-agents/#user-agent as their definition of "user agent", once we've published our document as a Note. I have a similar question to the WHATWG in whatwg/infra#708.

[plehegar]

@tidoust needs to be in this loop. And team-legal@w3.org should probably be involved.

[tidoust]

I don't think that the Process document defines what can or cannot be referenced normatively. The decision there is up to the transitions Team per the normative references) procedure. Elevating the Note to a Statement would make the most sense to me. It would confirm that the Note does not contain "implementable technology" which would, I think, also confirm that the Patent Policy does not need to apply.