IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] What do we want in SVG

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 12 October 2021 19:24 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 D1D0F3A03FE; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 12:24:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=iecc.com header.b=iiOyXfEa; dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=taugh.com header.b=mzSirAyC
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 PR056tai1pI2; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 12:24:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AF623A03F7; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 12:24:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 932C1F37E5; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 12:24:28 -0700 (PDT)
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 E7FF0F37E5 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 12:24:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=iiOyXfEa; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=mzSirAyC
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 oeMEZf1Y8x9k for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 12:24:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 192F3E536F for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 12:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 6555 invoked from network); 12 Oct 2021 19:24:18 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=1999.6165e0e2.k2110; bh=R83IBmsEQ4Vzxk0fPJDD29MMWXpsxguKaqu+xYtTCRA=; b=iiOyXfEaM1rkUWNExEgh0ifGaG3qm6XZFiPKTnKKN4soMkmfoKZh5G4aw9481oaEyxvTXmyGxjMTyRUVJj4HmeP6ZfKAE528lo+zIog3HrW6RUh6rd6VXLcbR2NIT6Hpfr0ztLZFV3Ikh8E3yor5nuzwtlOUVWzSCb0mt8UaNILWL6OJKYS/lQgwa03LIx7MvDOe56jjxcba9Mgngl2FutmRXPgqd2QPy7taH7Adcmt+2UUN0B8PhFUpZZQ//bMep6Dozts/0accJmq11m7OEDo75MszUVV8EkBzpGgskttAWKUBru219GOQQYnIrgpBoQp5BPjiMfmsUHx2oIKasg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=1999.6165e0e2.k2110; bh=R83IBmsEQ4Vzxk0fPJDD29MMWXpsxguKaqu+xYtTCRA=; b=mzSirAyC/QfDzL41XXdPht+X2OyDOEH0eA5paX30SMkz1wH4BVZJ3ppBfxnHyHKvhtsBtNQe8+9TBpxe2FPCmuMNDWIFyz4srLtZdfUKGAkhXeqPHW7FwJ7oAOQSeKgGFxdf/EnCUGxHD39CiFJHjGLiHqta2L/z248JK9f2n6j428ezeUFnyfdvpZCijDcl2tAwDofFfVbToaFm2FACEgoSVogadPbKbHSTSIlHo2/tkDgfD4uz+0IBDEv71eSZZle0FI554b+FQq3A//yiNQkYCrt39O9tqQNu3JC1a1Aq5j5sYod/2K6rWDqAJkfn5XP+PbPPBa2BbRzaVS55yg==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 12 Oct 2021 19:24:18 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 86EEC2A12A97; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 15:24:16 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 15:24:16 -0400
Message-Id: <20211012192417.86EEC2A12A97@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
In-Reply-To: <2c1dd7fa-14c9-47d0-92ad-3a9e63a3c155@www.fastmail.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Cleverness: minimal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] What do we want in SVG
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

It appears that Martin Thomson  <mt@lowentropy.net> said:
>This is a perfectly valid document under any automated validated system I can imagine.
>
>It also happens to be a single letter "a", rendered in the Arial font.  My browser shows it as almost identical to following document:

I think we can have editorial guidelines saying not to do silly things.  The point of a diagram
in an RFC is to inform the reader, not to make a statement about the author's aesthetic politics.

As I would have thought we agreed long time ago, when we switched to XML, that meant that
nobody has perfect control over the appearance of a document, and that is a feature.  The HTML
resizes to the user's screen, can zoom in and out for those of us with fading eyesight, and
can be read aloud by screen readers, at least assuming authors don't play tricks.

For mechanical checks, I would think that if the ASCII art had strings of text and there were
no corresponding <tspan> in the SVG, that's a strong hint that the picture needs to be redrawn with a better
tool.

R's,
John
_______________________________________________
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