Hi, Martin Thomson <m...@lowentropy.net> wrote: > > That's a lot more words, but I think that it matches expectations. >
I agree with the editorial guidelines you suggest. But the SVG elements are part of the "canonical" XML format. RFC 7991 delegates this to RFC 7996, which does have a precise definition (even if we want a newer one now). https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7991.html#section-4 I thought I would see how RFC 7991 (The "xml2rfc" Version 3 Vocabulary) cites XML itself. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7991.html#section-9 [XML] Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C., Maler, E., and F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth Edition)", W3C Recommendation REC-xml-20081126, November 2008, <https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126/>. Latest version available at <http://www.w3.org/TR/xml>. Well, this should work: [SVG] Editor names... Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) 2 W3C Candidate Recommendation 04 October 2018 <https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/CR-SVG2-20181004/> Latest version available at <https://www.w3.org/TR/SVG> I think it works, given that https://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/ has been working for 20+ years, and that "latest version" link doesn't have a version. That citation tells the reader which one we were working from at the time. I still think the bullet points from SVG2 are better for some of the policies discussed. They cover scripting, interactivity, animation, and external resources--just as SVG does. thanks, Rob
-- rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
