Re: [Bimi] [rfc-i] SVG P/S Feedback

One of the functional requirements for SVG illustrations is that when
converted to PDF/A that the result is "as good as it gets" so the authors
don't rely on embedded animations or videos to explain the protocol they are
describing.

What if you did a round trip   SVG -> PDF/A -> SVG. I think it's possible to
insure that doing so is idempotent (if it isn't now).

Then the RFC editor wouldn't have to decide whether the SVG fits some
profile.
Just run it as part of the process. Add it to the internet drafts submission
process.

Make sure that everyone reviews the illustrations in BOTH html and pdf
during AUTH48 
--
https://LarryMasinter.net https://interlisp.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org> On Behalf Of
Brian E
> Carpenter
> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 3:26 PM
> To: Brotman, Alex <Alex_Brotman@comcast.com>; rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> Cc: BIMI (IETF) (bimi@ietf.org) <bimi@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [rfc-i] SVG P/S Feedback
> 
> Alex,
> 
> I have to say that the RFC7996 profile of SVG Tiny is, in my experience, a
> problem rather than a solution. It was designed with the best possible
> intentions and some of the rules (like no colour, no greyscale, and no
external
> references) are appropriate for the RFC context, but trying to generate
> conformant SVG with popular and widespread drawing tools is almost
> impossible**.
> 
> ** Even with dia, which is a pretty minimal tool, some post-processing of
the
> SVG may be needed. Producing my own recent effort
>
(https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-04.html#section-
> appendix.a) was quite a saga.
> 
> Regards
>    Brian Carpenter
> 
> On 29-Aug-20 00:57, Brotman, Alex wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > [Apologies for the cross-posting]
> >
> > As part of a separate project, we wanted to create a smaller SVG
profile[1].  It
> is based on SVG Tiny 1.2, with several components removed.  The goal is to
try
> to keep the document self-contained, remove animations, and generally more
> portable and secure (hence P/S).  Personally, I've been curious if we
should be
> trying to create a new baseProfile as we've specified, given that it may
behoove
> a developer to only target this subset of Tiny features, reducing
footprint and
> attack surface.  We also welcome feedback about the text and font elements
> that we've permitted in the draft, and their security implications.
> >
> > We thank you for any advice or feedback you can provide.
> >
> > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-svg-tiny-ps-abrotman/
> >
> > --
> > Alex Brotman
> > Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy Comcast
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rfc-interest mailing list
> > rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest