On this topic of the XML vocab, I do want to call attention to section 1.5 of the 9280 update draft [1] regarding the purview of the RSWG and RSAB. The new text clarifies that "detailed technical specifications, for example specific details of text or graphical formats or XML grammar" are the responsibility of RPC (not RSWG). So if we end up approving this draft, I would expect that there will be a new path for making XML progress.
[1] https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-editorial-rswg-rfc9280-updates-02.html#name-purview-of-the-rswg-and-rsa On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 10:14 AM Salz, Rich <rsalz= [email protected]> wrote: > The draft obsoletes 9280 but doesn’t change the version? That seems a > likely source of confusion. For example, the second paragraph says things > have changed based on what we learned, but it’s still 3? It says it > “updates 9280” and then next sentence says it obsoletes it. Perhaps that > ship has sailed, and I alone am left in the rough. :) > > In Sec 1, you must change “Whereas” to “While” > > I read Section 1.3.1 carefully a couple of times. Perhaps I am being > thrown by use of the phrase “tooling and code” and would want to see “Data > definitions” (to cover the XML vocabulary). I **think** that changing > that is covered by the “expected to solicit input” (second to last) > paragraph in that section. I would rather see that called out explicitly. > > +1 to Mirja’s “remove the IAB members” section. Also just remove the > Acknowledgement section. Both of those were about 9280, not this document. > > > -- > rswg mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
