Hi Alexis, Thank you for your reply. We will incorporate this feedback during the edit process -- and we've added this draft to the markdown experiment!
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Sep 17, 2025, at 5:40 PM, Alexis Rossi <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Sarah, > > Answers to your questions are inline below, thanks! > > Alexis > > -- > 1) As there may have been multiple updates made to the document during Last > Call, > please review the current version of the document: > > * Is the text in the Abstract is still accurate? > > yes > * Are the References, Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments > sections current? > > We have submitted an updated draft to fix the SVG reference to > https://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/ per convo with Rob Sayre > (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rswg/EzFenA7eALGmHvBMY89_eyuwoJs/) on > the RSWG list. > > New version at: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-editorial-rswg-svgsinrfcs/04/ > > > 2) Please share any style information that could help us with editing your > document. For example: > > * Is your document's format or its terminology based on another document? > If so, please provide a pointer to that document (e.g., this document's > terminology should match DNS terminology in RFC 9499). > > no > * Is there a pattern of capitalization or formatting of terms? (e.g., field > names > should have initial capitalization; parameter names should be in double > quotes; > <tt/> should be used for token names; etc.) > > no > > > 3) Is there any text that should be handled extra cautiously? For example, > are > there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? > > Yes, we spent quite some time on the list refining the language in this > bullet point so would be better to treat with caution: > "SVGs must not include animation or interactive features. SVGs > should include only limited reactive design elements (scaling, > dark/light mode, and perhaps minor adjustments to allow for > variations in display technology). The intent of this is to > ensure that the diagram's meaning is not altered." > > > 4) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this > document? > > no > > > > 5) Because this document obsoletes RFC 7996, please review > the reported errata and confirm that they have either been addressed in this > document or are not relevant: > > * RFC 7996 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc7996) > > The one existing errata is a technical detail that is no longer relevant in > the new policy-only document. As all technical details will now be decided by > RPC, the errata may be useful to RPC in creating their own documentation, but > it does not need to be addressed in this publication. > > > 6) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for editing in > kramdown-rfc? > If so, please let us know and provide a self-contained kramdown-rfc file. For > more > information about this experiment, see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc. > > If you can take one more in the cue, that would be great (md attached), but I > understand you're already past your intended limit for September. > > > <svgsinrfcs.md> -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
