IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] Proposed Program Description for RFC Editor evolution program

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Wed, 15 January 2020 20:20 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED90B1209CB for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 12:20:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.951
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.951 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KWBYOc7FZhIZ for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 12:20:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF2C3120A16 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 12:20:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2FEAF40738; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 12:20:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33456F40738 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 12:20:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 03i1V4hYmVzo for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 12:20:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi1-f182.google.com (mail-oi1-f182.google.com [209.85.167.182]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 072E4F40727 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 12:20:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-f182.google.com with SMTP id c77so16695385oib.7 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 12:20:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=f33nv8AkRgaALPfrhn7pU0FflfOa4L5tubk3kW1FuXs=; b=K/neywfNSYQbQRObdPm15EsIpA8/mlNvxnogrLTSlkyXBw1FjTflqAO8jUTlI1A/ll mG6MKZmORGkgmUAJD7eAtiPboY7LRbmTqFEGRNBDkTV90nE6MWNKvKW0NBR89sqGvI0v sM/IQ5VJ4cKhfvgBwP8pvVUoLRvEUGqabq70KcMHGJuiW8kRgZWFOuyyeU9ZlfAB9/uJ zWICdqYUDWaXLV0o5GsmglBykQBcP5lNdoTyAmHezrdKLLjoSEjf4rbVLg1uijm1jIpV PLNJIy3ypy02/ZBmUYKSQ0Ci/9nUG9OWaBZNxTbOmZ3ztmijpn94jZV3M4zkhKHvuREM fMUw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXCXwSkrY2CV1ufzC6oF0wVHNdRWOV0z+A0rNP7FHG9RBufas2i L1Q1FV5CLF/d4Lyat0BCCILS2/UeF622DgkDnDs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw2hEXGIf48Idyb88MqW3lmeVGIogodTKArmzD2OylYUQsD6JkaSyB7znHQMjLs9B9iixtXfuOne7L4GSK3Mp4=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:cdd6:: with SMTP id d205mr1302389oig.90.1579119620480; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 12:20:20 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+9kkMBFgdFdT3CLYWDvK5QN7xQOnMo+SQLG0_yueqhthcd+bg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwjprpUb-_hM5Q7+a0bjWSVD6bTm3Dyf3MKs392gzws6MQ@mail.gmail.com> <a0353404-6d96-0491-8049-935f0c88da62@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <a0353404-6d96-0491-8049-935f0c88da62@gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 15:19:57 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwjETjx84ecT3XhOOExu2GiQ2=Yrv70T_28xZs4VV=rEdw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Proposed Program Description for RFC Editor evolution program
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>, RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2848666799201608154=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 1:40 PM Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Yes, I know a clique decided that they only wanted black and white
> images.
>
> What clique was that again?
>
> Oh yes, I remember, it was the people who bothered to express an opinion
> on the open mailing list where the format was debated at great length,
> including the reasons for excluding greyscale and colour.
>
> I have some code for a heuristic to convert greyscale and colour to pure
> b&w if you want it, although I was hoping it would be added as an option to
> the normal tool. That said, SVG is a horrible mess when you dig into it and
> the tools that create it are inconsistent. This topic does need more work
> but b&w seems to be the least of our problems.
>

SVG seems to have been deployed in the Web browsers with a high degree of
consistency.

Tiny SVG is already a profile. And the IETF has a profile on a profile
which is written in an entirely different schema language and the RFC does
not match the tool.

It is not the colour conversion that is the issue at this point, it is the
profiling that was imposed as a result of that decision.

One of the things people keep saying to me when I start talking about the
User Interface is 'we don't do that here'. Well why define a new graphics
format in that case rather than using the existing, widely supported
standard?

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email