Re: [rfc-i] [Tools-discuss] What do do about SVG

[Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>]

The repository for svcheck is at 
https://github.com/ietf-tools/RfcEditor/tree/master/svgcheck.

RjS

On 5/14/21 8:10 AM, HANSEN, TONY L wrote:
> Thank you, Nevil, Brian
>
> On 5/14/2021, 12:43 AM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>      Hi Nevil,
>
>      I'll write off list with the things I discovered. Some of it was quite
>      a long time ago, so I'll have to look back at my emails to Jim.
>
>      One thing for now though. I'm illiterate in RelaxNG, but it seems
>      to me that <style> is definitely allowed in two or three places
>      in RFC7996, and it isn't even defined in svgcheck/word_properties.py
>      so it's no wonder that svgcheck rejects it.
>
>      Regards
>         Brian
>
>      On 14-May-21 16:23, Nevil Brownlee wrote:
>      > Hi Brian and Tony:
>      >
>      > I'm the guy who wrote the original version of svgcheck.py.
>      > Jim Schaad did the production engineering on it, and I worked with him
>      > to make sure it was compliant with the RNC schema that appears in RFC
>      > 7996.
>      >
>      > I recently downloaded svgcheck (from the RFC Editor site, I think),
>      > that's version 0.6.0;  I could work through that to fix the problems
>      > Brian reported.  However, it will need someone on the Tools team to
>      > get the fixed version back into their repository.
>      >
>      > Please let me know if you'd like me to make the changes to svgcheck
>      > (it will take a week or two though).
>      >
>      > Cheers, Nevil
>      >
>      >
>      > On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 12:29 AM HANSEN, TONY L <[e-mail]> wrote:
>      >>
>      >> On 5/13/2021, 12:24 AM, "rfc-interest on behalf of Brian E Carpenter" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
>      >>
>      >> After some investigation, I've understood that this particular problem
>      >> is because svgcheck doesn't allow <style> as a child of <svg>. Nor, after
>      >> some experiments, as a child of <path>, even though the RelaxNG in
>      >> RFC7996 appears to allow it. (Also, when <style> defines a color, and
>      >> I patch svgcheck/word_properties.py to allow <style>, svgcheck doesn't
>      >> seem to detect the color elements inside <style>.)
>      >>
>      >> In the course of this I found another instance of a particular
>      >> bug in svgcheck (failure to increment errorCount).
>      >>
>      >> So we have the facts that
>      >> (a) svgcheck is buggy;
>      >> (b) it doesn't implement the RelaxNG in RFC7996;
>      >> (c) sadly, we lost the maintainer of the code;
>      >> (d) our subset of TinySVG is very hard to generate with most drawing tools;
>      >> (e) experience shows that special SVG mangling programs are needed to prepare files for inclusion in RFCs;
>      >> (f) we've been told that TinySVG is no longer alive at W3C;
>      >> (g) browsers appear to be fully competent at interpreting full SVG.
>      >>
>      >> How can we make progress on resolving this?
>      >>
>      >> As an FYI, I see three maintainers listed for svgcheck at https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://pypi.org/project/svgcheck/__;!!BhdT!3hOxHzMKjodMzADvfA9H8y70wYlv3lgGYPIoeh7v2-GPsHPlZ0GobwwsCQ$ . Can we poke them to address some of these issues, in particular a&b? Or provide them pull requests for the code?
>      >>
>      >> d,e,f are somewhat intractable unless we throw it out entirely and move to full SVG. g is one argument for that.
>      >>
>      >> However, there were several reasons behind going with a subset, laid out in section 2 of RFC 7996 and section 3.2 of RFC 6949. Any movement to support a larger version of SVG needs to address these requirements first.
>      >>
>      >> Tony
>      >>
>      >> _______________________________________________
>      >> rfc-interest mailing list
>      >> [e-mail]
>      >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest__;!!BhdT!3hOxHzMKjodMzADvfA9H8y70wYlv3lgGYPIoeh7v2-GPsHPlZ0GOjT-1tQ$
>      >
>      >
>      >
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Tools-discuss mailing list - [e-mail]
> This list is for discussion, not for action requests or bug reports.
> * Report datatracker and mailarchive bugs to: [e-mail]
> * Report tools.ietf.org bugs to: [e-mail]
> * Report all other bugs or issues to: [e-mail]
> List info (including how to Unsubscribe): https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest