Since it seems like the "cc" functionality is not working figured I'd move this snippet over to the list to make it easier to isolate as a conversation.
Steven:
I assume we can fiddle the title in the text anytime, but we can't readily change the URLs and file name. A number of our candidate names revolve around "PL", for policy language. If we start with that then the URLs and filenames won't be that incongruous with whatever overarching name we finally settle on. I'm thinking something like:
I assume the first "xacml" in the URLs is determined by the TC name.
This makes things even a bit more sticky given the move toward a more generalized, language agnostic core schema, one that serves one or more "co-spec to create a "core spec".
Do we consider modifying the TC name? Lots of Pros/Cons either way...both of which will require messaging.
If not then we'll have something like:
[XACML Core] + [XML Profile] = XML implementation of XACML (+ "traditional Profiles in XML)
[XACML Core] + [JSON Profile] = JSON implementation of XACML (+ "traditional Profiles in JSON)
...where neither XACML Core, not JSON Profile look anything like previous versions.
To me it seems odd to have Profiles that are part of the core specification, which is why I was thinking of something more like this in terms of document hierarchy structure:
[Core Schema] + [XML Schema] = X??? Specification (+ "traditional Profiles in XML)
[Core Schema] + [JSON Schema] = J??? Specification (+ "traditional Profiles in JSON)
Clearly, there are a lot of ways this can go on a number of levels, not the least of which is what we call things at the various levels in the document hierarchy.
b