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

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 1:04 AM Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On 20.01.2020 22:30, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > On 21-Jan-20 08:32, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> >> It is not just the greyscale that is the issue. There are numerous
> issues in the diagrams that result from the chosen profile.
> >
> > No colour or greyscale was a choice, not an issue. Because people wanted
> both printability and accessibility, the choice was made to get rid of
> colour-impaired sight problems and cheap printer problems.
> >
> > The only other big problem I'm currently aware of is scalability. There
> are some interactions between browsers and elements like viewBox,
> width="724.0" and height="485.135549872".
>
> I implemented experimental down-conversion of SVG in
> <https://github.com/reschke/xml2rfc/blob/master/prep-xml2rfc.xslt> and
> found that the lack of markers prevents the use of even trivial GraphViz
> output.
>

It was the lack of markers set me off. It is clear that pretty much every
drawing program is going to use them because they are implementing
primitives that are there in every vector drawing API for the past 30
years.

I can work round the font issues provided that I get a list of the allowed
character sets (I have looked in the documentation and not found such) nor
did the other links provide the necessary info.

While we are not doing MathML at this point, I am pretty sure that math
characters are going to be more useful than the chess pieces in the current
set. But right now, I can't use any non ascii characters because I don't
know what the filter set should be.

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