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

Brian,

We've sort of seen the same issue, though we expect that tools will catchup over time.   That being said, I know that Inkscape does not today support SVG Tiny 1.2 as an export format.  Illustrator does a reasonable job with Tiny, though seems to have a few bugs during export.  I haven't yet tried Dia or Scribus (I believe it also supports export to SVG).   Even with support in tools lacking today, we'd like to work toward this goal of creating this format.  We've had good success thus far getting images to conform without skewing the intended representation.

--
Alex Brotman
Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy
Comcast

> -----Original Message-----
> From: bimi <bimi-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 6:26 PM
> To: Brotman, Alex <Alex_Brotman@comcast.com>; rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> Cc: BIMI (IETF) (bimi@ietf.org) <bimi@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Bimi] [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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-carpenter-
> eligibility-expand-04.html*section-
> appendix.a__;Iw!!CQl3mcHX2A!Sw3IJrGz1vhg-
> lLQ4qwXhNufnJeIQBquFhOycYTbRb_sEE7UjU8crw2Ud3Do0KOSSpx6kxA$ ) 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-svg
> > -tiny-ps-abrotman/__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!Sw3IJrGz1vhg-
> lLQ4qwXhNufnJeIQBquFhOy
> > cYTbRb_sEE7UjU8crw2Ud3Do0KOSmpkX2ck$
> >
> > --
> > Alex Brotman
> > Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy Comcast
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rfc-interest mailing list
> > rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinf
> > o/rfc-interest__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!Sw3IJrGz1vhg-
> lLQ4qwXhNufnJeIQBquFhOycYTb
> > Rb_sEE7UjU8crw2Ud3Do0KOSV9_wXTY$
> >
>
> --
> bimi mailing list
> bimi@ietf.org
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bimi__;!!C
> Ql3mcHX2A!Sw3IJrGz1vhg-
> lLQ4qwXhNufnJeIQBquFhOycYTbRb_sEE7UjU8crw2Ud3Do0KOSdnTI4aY$