IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Tue, 21 January 2020 20:38 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 8A002F4070F for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 12:38:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.395
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.395 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] 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 a_5J8Dd-i-7e for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 12:38:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot1-f46.google.com (mail-ot1-f46.google.com [209.85.210.46]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 421A9F406F7 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 12:38:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot1-f46.google.com with SMTP id a15so4254189otf.1 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 12:38:11 -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=y9tv9qCEeLBuTx1bJoAE7lEWTbqwoI0i78jVH+wA47o=; b=PBwlV9i1diK+71RmuXv5kJ7pXEKOq6DgYLqUe/7Xd2l1qwzRvxpfurWeS5jNbdHqkM nh0N6deAnnBjPvaAdx8XBGNw6lrmstgz1hzxiJCJEamhkOLLIi1wLMWPmcWq5sEfq0N7 7g9cXVjPa8r2tb5GLTEk2nUKcVsJZqKSiYgjXHIcujD409q00u4FbTqHO33wLKcNd3Wk YIE1dO0XVCu41o2uvFGG89WsyyuJRKxQV9lctxRXO3luI85NpDvLBVaA5Yl4Gxp03omH rVxEnMRGNiUP9/j/XaoLzRyNdevnrKb8GQPwYpF1F7vn54IFRbL5dBlr+RSvTbUNRQQ8 i6tg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXFkFkFPW20YQcduPQP+zJ7BGp4ADReSCYUGQj5NN4O3Ayhv/Kw Fg74BR5DesuCLGfqZT2YdS8vdCL0vnvqqul9xI0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwIT3o57qorvRIsBE70cHdM7TZESU0Q3n8DAlUn4PQ9rIDUIfFNT8OfXtGKM4vSU0BD4eSKB4mg0nfENPE1MY0=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1481:: with SMTP id s1mr4943988otq.66.1579639091049; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 12:38:11 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <70ed6362-41ee-faf5-8f90-d094455dbdf4@gmail.com> <ea7f2604-251f-f2da-661f-0438cbadb53a@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <1fec5eff-5653-a771-eeb2-0030049c579e@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1fec5eff-5653-a771-eeb2-0030049c579e@gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 15:38:00 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMm+Lwgdt585qELqwkk_=iNW=wdMW74aEFCNpLj96b=JVytbaw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Doug Royer <douglasroyer@gmail.com>
Cc: RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e539e3059cac6219"
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG profile is not trivial
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: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 20:38:07 -0000

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 1:36 PM Doug Royer <douglasroyer@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 1/20/20 10:48 PM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>
> > In SVG, there is actually a specific attribute for dealing with the
> > variation in overall width of a text depending on the font. It is called
> > textLength. Please see
> > https://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/text.html#TextElementTextLengthAttribute. I
> > do not know whether this attribute is allowed in the RFC subset of SVG,
> > but it should be.
> >
>
> Nope, not in Tiny SVG, or RFC-7996-SVG. And the supplied VISIO generated
> SVG file simply supplied the  text positions in 'em' values, so it would
> take a lot of code to reverse that back to how to scale an unrelated font
> to the same width.
>

I can fix these values up without too much effort because there are only a
few fonts specified and I can pull the values out of the definitions.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email