- From: Paul Grosso <paul@paulgrosso.name>
- Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 09:22:34 -0600
- To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
The latest looks fine to me. If I don't hear anything to the contrary by the end of next week, I will send in another endorsement email to IETF that is basically the same as my earlier endorsement email at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg10849.html paul On 2014-02-07 06:19, Henry S. Thompson wrote: > 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
Received on Friday, 7 February 2014 15:23:04 UTC