Re: [rfc-i] SVG/A specification.

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Fri, 24 January 2020 20:24 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
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 EC71AF40721 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 12:24:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.394
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.394 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, SURBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 yhHPWWZI3TIP for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 12:24:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot1-f45.google.com (mail-ot1-f45.google.com [209.85.210.45]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE1FAF40720 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 12:24:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot1-f45.google.com with SMTP id w21so2860157otj.7 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 12:24:16 -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=O+WtVmYNXIkSCC+SHfXEHHfZKDnkmYKFz+c1E7X9Sw0=; b=afOi3GIlyxub+bwuUMPcjGo7P1+ESGRlSACNL31BEJtfaatBUMML6bTcf9Su5b8ep3 KtMYiCQh2hAe+PZyGI43bWsBsiOuOg9MPl+mluJzyksTJ6McbS58YpHPb86pzWe07Bo7 a3K7uuRlXgvMakpb+IEO3Od3BBePBdq4Znm4MbItDHAEYgSISDMBew4gcYn1kgtYjqBM IjNJk46HEMNDU2N2cIByYnYXOG9V9gjPEiWcYtErcKUMcSXB2toX7Lb82N08N3WXV/yF ivBQkNSYIo8TCj25evkwZCFKIVWWZpNrrnPf+xl6iy1sjfqFPs97UQgXZgQ/g+ps8Ptj ehmQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWlhIUdmS/MLjasjIs5Hy3yNA9rPvACXcx9rdm3wtKrn+udbMCG wpH7R8/UAj/4LgvdGdATuWAkfeGfbD3CbQCoyAs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxpg5Ql6+9gcqHYyTHHj7s+s3Azkofx9h8lskTu+sF1AsFxrgnO1xEAs2ybiKIWk7dkakQcLJKhVm0ZhJjoJhk=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:6758:: with SMTP id w24mr4270179otm.155.1579897456012; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 12:24:16 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMm+LwhRoycA5Dn-SmhTWGizRcxe5i_9nGPbcs=6MYkfGS4SWQ@mail.gmail.com> <9261C066-86A3-4D80-A5A1-890E06A67744@adobe.com> <CAMm+LwhWAyfyQuaBKQC8UWS_4GhgFfNPA_etKhhKQw=eUcVhzA@mail.gmail.com> <3743BC40-78B6-4452-BEC3-696EC0DA717B@adobe.com>
In-Reply-To: <3743BC40-78B6-4452-BEC3-696EC0DA717B@adobe.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 15:24:04 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwjfGM-X1cdfDjm4YMh7Wo8+gqRxo45O9vwgbPdNyVS+cw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
Cc: RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a5b0ec059ce88a80"
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] SVG/A specification.
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>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 20:24:07 -0000

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 2:00 PM Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
wrote:

> >> Style
>
> > It presents a problem for validation and for the aggregation of XML2RFC
> + SVG* to on XML document. Basically, it means that the validator has to
> understand the style sheet language.
>
> >Since the output language is XML2RFC which prohibits style, it seems
> simplest to simply flatten all this out.
>
> >
>
> OK, I’ll buy that for Stylesheet.  But not for style.  Style is simple –
> it’s just ‘key/value’ pairs.
>

Yes, it probably doesn't need to be made a requirement.

Though if style is allowed, it will have to be constrained to the set of
allowed attribute values, we don't get that from schema validation unless
the attributes are converted.


> > But the original reason for this was not actually the archival part but
> the accessibility part.
>
> >It is much easier to restrict attributes to a limited palette of colors
> if there is a single means of expressing them.
>
> >
>
> That may be true for colors **but** style also is where you define things
> like line-width, line-joins. dash patterns, font weight, etc.
>
>
>
> And what about the ID restriction?
>

That was a typo, the tool currently suppresses id, class and style. I meant
to delete id from that list and deleted style instead.

The id is not needed for SVG-Tiny and the easiest way to avoid duplication
was to delete 'em.

> So the only way to make this happen would be to expand the SVG Font
> definitions inside the diagrams. Which isn't going to happen. Pity.
>
> >
>
> No, the correct way to do this is simply to “embed” the font, as I
> recommended.  See
> https://www.htmlgoodies.com/beyond/webmaster/serving-up-base64-encoded-custom-fonts.html
>

Yes but I don't think the group is going to go for that for the same reason
they resist using data: urls for PNG.