On 07-May-25 05:13, Salz, Rich 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. :)
Yes, that inconsistency needs fixing, but I thought we agreed that (a) it
obsoletes, i.e. replaces, 9280 and (b) there is no fundamental change to the
model, so it's still version 3 (or 3.1 if you like).
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.
I think it's common practice to carry forward and expand the acknowledgments in
an obsoleting document. Of course I agree that the list of former IAB members
is irrelevant.
Brian
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
