Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG profile is not trivial

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 21 January 2020 06:04 UTC

To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
References: <CAMm+LwiXhhJO7qYi41+DC4W7uMUVipXqyq75Fq2vagA1ppJNdA@mail.gmail.com> <10cca93f-a8b8-4c42-0653-3b12fa67ad12@gmail.com> <CAMm+LwgA-1UffBfrH-Y3J6pfh7ni9kNrndp=gHNyUyi5j=oLxg@mail.gmail.com> <53607da4-6608-783b-b875-65551e3add19@gmail.com> <CAMm+LwgNU2Dr3bB+A8k+UwbQiRRzgUkoRRh60tc6+bBv6CXwfQ@mail.gmail.com> <1134cbfb-e6c1-2708-9556-a26ffa3f2922@gmail.com>
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <c153a154-20d5-a4ec-d2d3-316d6a4f5954@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 07:04:18 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1134cbfb-e6c1-2708-9556-a26ffa3f2922@gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG profile is not trivial
Precedence: list
Cc: RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On 20.01.2020 22:30, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 21-Jan-20 08:32, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>> It is not just the greyscale that is the issue. There are numerous issues in the diagrams that result from the chosen profile.
>
> No colour or greyscale was a choice, not an issue. Because people wanted both printability and accessibility, the choice was made to get rid of colour-impaired sight problems and cheap printer problems.
>
> The only other big problem I'm currently aware of is scalability. There are some interactions between browsers and elements like viewBox, width="724.0" and height="485.135549872".

I implemented experimental down-conversion of SVG in
<https://github.com/reschke/xml2rfc/blob/master/prep-xml2rfc.xslt> and
found that the lack of markers prevents the use of even trivial GraphViz
output.

> I also discovered that any any <?xml ...> or <!DOCTYPE ...> declarations must be removed from the SVG file.

That I would call a bug. It's not backed by anything in the specs.

> Hopefully the Temporary RFC Series Project Manager can coordinate some systematic approach to identifying SVG issues, both in tooling for the existing subset and possible updates to the subset. As Leonard Rosenthol hinted, unrestricted SVG is not really an option.

While I agree with that, there are *much* more pressing issues to
address (such as the fact that we publish "canonical" XML which does not
conform to any agreed-upon vocabulary definition).

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

[rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG profile … Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Doug Royer
Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Brian E Carpenter
Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Doug Royer
Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Leonard Rosenthol
Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Brian E Carpenter
Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Leonard Rosenthol
Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Brian E Carpenter
Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Doug Royer
Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Martin J. Dürst
Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Julian Reschke
Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Michael Richardson
Re: [rfc-i] Where was the discussion? Doug Royer
Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Doug Royer
Re: [rfc-i] Where was the discussion? Julian Reschke
Re: [rfc-i] Where was the discussion? Carsten Bormann
Re: [rfc-i] Where was the discussion? Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [rfc-i] Where was the discussion? Brian E Carpenter
Re: [rfc-i] Where was the discussion? Brian E Carpenter
Re: [rfc-i] Where was the discussion? Brian E Carpenter
Re: [rfc-i] Where was the discussion? Mark Nottingham
Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Brian E Carpenter
Re: [rfc-i] Where was the discussion? Julian Reschke
Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Carsten Bormann
Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Christian Huitema
Re: [rfc-i] Where was the discussion? Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [rfc-i] Where was the discussion? Julian Reschke
Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Salz, Rich
Re: [rfc-i] Where was the discussion? Michael Richardson
Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Michael Richardson
Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… S Moonesamy
Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Donald Eastlake
Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Brian E Carpenter
Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Brian E Carpenter