Hi Nevil, Alexis, all, Nevil - Thank you for your reply; please note that we await your final approval of the document’s XML formatting and output files.
Alexis, all - Thank you for your responses. We have updated the usage of “SVG” throughout this document accordingly. You may view these most recent updates in the updated files below or in the diff here: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896-lastrfcdiff.html>. The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9896 — FILES: — XML file: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896.xml XML diff: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896-xmldiff1.html Output 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 Diff of most recent changes: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896-lastdiff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of changes made in AUTH48: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of all changes: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9896-rfcdiff.html (side by side) For more information about the RPC’s kramdown-rfc pilot, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_instructions_completing_auth48_using_kramdown Happy holidays and all best, Kaelin Foody RFC Production Center > On Dec 19, 2025, at 5:46 PM, Alexis Rossi <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Alice, > > I don't think the proposed changes affect the readability/meaning of the doc > so if it's more appropriate to use the terms this way, I'm fine with the > proposed suggestions. > > Thanks, > Alexis > > On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 1:42 PM 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) -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
