Hi Alice: Your proposed for VGs seem clear to me, and very sensible. Go ahead with those changes. Cheers, Nevil
On Fri, Dec 19, 2025 at 10:42 AM Alice Russo <[email protected]> wrote: > > Authors, > > We realize the content of RFC-to-be 9896 has been approved; my apologies, as > here's a usage question that has arisen late in the process -- please > consider whether "SVGs" (plural acronym) may be updated. More detail: "SVGs" > is not used in W3C documents (e.g., https://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/intro.html). > Some may consider "SVGs" similar to using a file extension in plural like > "JPGs" and "PNGs". However, it reads oddly. We note the expansion has an 's' > (in 'Graphics'), while the acronym remains "SVG". We propose changing each > instance of "SVGs", where the update was applied based on the intended > meaning: > A) SVG the language --> "SVG" > B) SVG images --> "SVG drawings" > > Please review and let us know if you prefer to leave the document as is or > make updates as shown in this diff file (or otherwise): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896_proposed.html > > Thank you. > > Alice Russo > RFC Production Center > > -- Current files: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896-rfcdiff.html (all changes from > approved I-D) -- ----------------------------------- Nevil Brownlee, Taupo, NZ -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
