Re: RFC 3023bis end-game, again, I hope

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