Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG profile is not trivial
Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Wed, 22 January 2020 06:48 UTC
Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 2A2B6F406F3 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 22:48:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 FSNj8M08o9xa for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 22:48:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37258F406D5 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 22:48:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.217.119] (p548DC4D8.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.196.216]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 482bbB43zvz16b0; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 07:48:38 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.40.2.2.4\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <31cf835c-aad6-637f-fc12-8f3efa04e6e7@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 07:48:38 +0100
Cc: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 601368517.9555399-a22bbe695b14ba1436c65a980b8937ab
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DC069039-92DF-4F03-89EC-6D42E5A61E3F@tzi.org>
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> <CAMm+Lwhy-AV_K5evzGdpDi-ynpLE4RxXCVB1HercickYfZaubg@mail.gmail.com> <27103.1579626232@localhost> <31cf835c-aad6-637f-fc12-8f3efa04e6e7@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.40.2.2.4)
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: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 06:48:35 -0000
On 2020-01-22, at 04:31, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: > > I agree that the lack of coloured shading is annoying for many people, but *using* shading is annoying for people with limited colour vision. In Germany, we have colored traffic lights, even if the coloring is less useful for people with limited color vision. Accessibility is important, and faithfully reproducing colors is near impossible, but still many archival journals manage to allow color in diagrams. It seems we are making the same mistake here as with the expansion beyond ASCII: by adopting a weird, idiosyncratic subset of the stable state of the art (UTF-8, SVG) we are incurring most of the problems (as well as some additional ones specific to our idiosyncrasies) while enjoying a small part of the benefit. Instead of coming up with more weird technical rules, we should focus on handling potential problems in the editorial process. Guidelines can help here (say, go for more than 60 % contrast in the Lab color model, don’t make semantics depend on non-Latin characters outside Math), but not all will be enforceable by tools, just as with other editorial guidelines (e.g., go for stable references). Grüße, Carsten
- [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG profile … Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Doug Royer
- Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Doug Royer
- Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Leonard Rosenthol
- Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Leonard Rosenthol
- Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Doug Royer
- Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Julian Reschke
- Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Michael Richardson
- Re: [rfc-i] Where was the discussion? Doug Royer
- Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Doug Royer
- Re: [rfc-i] Where was the discussion? Julian Reschke
- Re: [rfc-i] Where was the discussion? Carsten Bormann
- Re: [rfc-i] Where was the discussion? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [rfc-i] Where was the discussion? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] Where was the discussion? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] Where was the discussion? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] Where was the discussion? Mark Nottingham
- Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] Where was the discussion? Julian Reschke
- Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Christian Huitema
- Re: [rfc-i] Where was the discussion? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [rfc-i] Where was the discussion? Julian Reschke
- Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Salz, Rich
- Re: [rfc-i] Where was the discussion? Michael Richardson
- Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Michael Richardson
- Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… S Moonesamy
- Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG prof… Brian E Carpenter