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

[Leonard Rosenthol <[e-mail]>]

> JPG has better prospects; SVG is not static, it continues to evolve
>
Actually the JPEG committee is much more active that the SVG committee - and I serve on both.

JPEG-1 (what most folks just refer to as JPEG) already has a number of backward-compatible(-ish) extensions to it (JPEG-XT, JPEG360, etc) with more in development.  The various committees meet at least once or twice a month.

SVG on the other hand dropped SVG 2.0 and is pretty much dormant waiting to see what sorts of functionality is desired by browsers (since they set the direction rather than actual users ☹ ).

Leonard

On 12/16/20, 8:55 PM, "rfc-interest on behalf of Martin Thomson" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

    On Thu, Dec 17, 2020, at 12:11, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
    > Yes. While Mike is correct in principle, I think that rendering will not
    > be a problem in practice, simply because browsers have to render whatever
    > is out there in the real world anyway.

    This is a great question still.  Mike's response gave me pause, but only because it raised the question of what it means for these to be of "archival" quality, and whether that even makes sense.  In that regard, a JPG has better prospects; SVG is not static, it continues to evolve.

    However, I think that Adam and Brian's pragmatism is what we should look to for an answer.  Our editorial guidance already ensures that comprehension of diagrams is not absolutely necessary to the understanding of the document.  And many cases will have ASCII art fallbacks.  That means our SVG dependency is very much opportunistic.

    Pragmatism suggests we just apply a little diligence and not expend too much effort following the path of RFC 7996, now that we know that to have failed to produce a good outcome.  It was a fine experiment, but it did not turn out to be practical.

    That is, we test that the image loads consistently in a reasonable sample of implementations and then have some tools to catch known problems.
    _______________________________________________
    rfc-interest mailing list
    [e-mail]
    https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Frfc-interest&amp;data=04%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C4a6a2b15397a4f193b8908d8a22ed226%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637437669282982073%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&amp;sdata=%2BxdgUfdksLxhhvb2S2MO5lL0WmXkQTUX9RqrkiqI6M8%3D&amp;reserved=0

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest