RFC 3023bis end-game, again, I hope

I just sent the following to the relevant IETF list:

> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-07.txt

   As usual, a disposition of comments against the previous draft is
   available at

     http://www.w3.org/XML/2012/10/3023bis/06-comments.html

   and an author's diff is at

     http://www.w3.org/XML/2012/10/3023bis/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-07_diff.html

   This draft has few changes from version 6, almost all as a result
   of a review by Larry Masinter, for which thanks.

   The only change even close to substantive is a summary
   RECOMMENDATION near the beginning of section 3, Encoding
   Considerations, which says

     The use of UTF-8, without a BOM, is RECOMMENDED for all XML MIME
     entities.

   See the 06-comments document for a summary of the discussion about
   this.

   The level of comments on this draft has shifted from substantive to
   rhetorical/editorial, and I think it's now pretty much fully-baked.
   I'd very much welcome some endorsements of its readiness, so that
   we can move it up and out of here.

In particular, wrt discussion here about the "UTF-8, UTF-8, UTF-8"
thread, note that the line above clearly says XML _MIME_ entities,
which carefully defined a few paras up as XML packaged inside MIME.  I
hope this addresses the concerns expressed, and keeps the
RECOMMENDATION clearly in-scope for a media-type registration, without
trespassing on our turf.

Could I ask for yet another endorsement of this draft from the WG,
please?

IETF staff are concerned at the slow progress of this work (something
they never seemed bothered by in previous years. . .), and have set a
deadline of 3 March for getting it moving. . .

ht
-- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]

Received on Friday, 7 February 2014 12:19:32 UTC