Re: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG profile is not trivial
Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Tue, 21 January 2020 05:49 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 427C012006E for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 21:49:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.751
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.751 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=itaoyama.onmicrosoft.com
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 IvY4fEKkoG7A for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 21:49:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED8B3120071 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 21:49:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA2ABF40742; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 21:49:00 -0800 (PST)
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 C564BF40742 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 21:48:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=itaoyama.onmicrosoft.com
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 SPbiJNSnV4Mq for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 21:48:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from JPN01-TY1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr1400139.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.140.139]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B86D9F40737 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 21:48:53 -0800 (PST)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=cNTxcM53H4u7gBnKCGv7TD5c9HAPJo3Qby/yPvDdy5dSvnzZs4AhFAFWuj3gFZBJglLkPuoChFKacBiVuDf2Uwe1DTMVUAA0ZOwaOc4Gcv4Fa4ZjcLD8VpAL6r7kNXovRm3wuOYCi0vZFUSMpi/JwRn4Oy4q/cpzi9GadLhETTOl3WB0PDVpujDbd1rdY6vL7kxZHNKvmP7Ja/WVwMhsJO0DXAgXyFlhSt4mQEQcpop9Hzw4o5fqE6iuP1UAUr7aqId4jr8LBFvGUXDrsxYzwnDIDKdr086UTWd/18Wl4KsE7ILS/1gButs+p1CxLsd8kbQrFQEDvrN4BDOQWyEmGw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=eGntgSW4eRaf/vsXduKHJfNKfdV79fR5adk7W8qPEvE=; b=KakjRrObcPN9onF9y4b7FscILl7+hMRkz3S+9IKOyEkyEuIu+79Odi702aa1DKCWfQjdsD2EXwFsiYxVS4WLBrHjl6t+AV18ADYXRWPhJHn9IidPAk2KBmPwptbi96+JNxoHyfTPKfsviPjCae36cfmtQYatmQWm+ENGQFHU7edFIkKxpoa6xBd3OcNweCJUeCH9yLUXDGc1hoqBa6Se8ZzphDFtKbvgr6Mos0rXheAK+LhPNjyyfqpXU5KH2TEiZQ9ZvTEEPmwF+vIYkF3PGbSVgs2dcqLFmwa83jCSAidjsqG2jVBn67cO9L9/wQLfW4PHn3KcU8CeBqskXmowWQ==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=it.aoyama.ac.jp; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=it.aoyama.ac.jp; dkim=pass header.d=it.aoyama.ac.jp; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=itaoyama.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-itaoyama-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=eGntgSW4eRaf/vsXduKHJfNKfdV79fR5adk7W8qPEvE=; b=R9n18XaQScdr6WRZLIj+5WJHkW+LJUhrqFCZ46Xn3GB2jYPwyObNkobD6+yz19/9t+1E65wWMfHUebHaq05Un1lvAEs35Jyb9CdEp/Y5yuW+ZnzpIaNvtKQjee0thnvFPMoupL35Ywa7U3L1PhR1tteYeRAYd4K7O+tvIa+Z2D8=
Received: from OSBPR01MB4134.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (20.178.99.16) by OSBPR01MB3445.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (20.178.96.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2644.20; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 05:48:59 +0000
Received: from OSBPR01MB4134.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::2803:ceac:27fa:cf6c]) by OSBPR01MB4134.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::2803:ceac:27fa:cf6c%4]) with mapi id 15.20.2644.026; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 05:48:59 +0000
Received: from [192.168.11.2] (133.2.210.83) by TY2PR0101CA0027.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com (2603:1096:404:8000::13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2644.20 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 05:48:59 +0000
From: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: Doug Royer <douglasroyer@gmail.com>, RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
Thread-Topic: [rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG profile is not trivial
Thread-Index: AQHVz8huDfXwEYJoFkqiTMaqNA9OC6f0kGyAgAAM9QA=
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 05:48:59 +0000
Message-ID: <ea7f2604-251f-f2da-661f-0438cbadb53a@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
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>
In-Reply-To: <70ed6362-41ee-faf5-8f90-d094455dbdf4@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-clientproxiedby: TY2PR0101CA0027.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com (2603:1096:404:8000::13) To OSBPR01MB4134.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (2603:1096:604:4c::16)
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp;
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: [133.2.210.83]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 36b281f6-8774-47bc-ca5e-08d79e359c99
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: OSBPR01MB3445:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <OSBPR01MB344599C71C42D1CBC5F24BD5CA0D0@OSBPR01MB3445.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0289B6431E
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(39840400004)(366004)(136003)(396003)(376002)(346002)(189003)(199004)(8676002)(86362001)(508600001)(966005)(16526019)(31696002)(85182001)(26005)(85202003)(186003)(2906002)(31686004)(5660300002)(6486002)(2616005)(956004)(8936002)(66574012)(52116002)(81166006)(81156014)(66556008)(786003)(16576012)(66446008)(110136005)(66946007)(64756008)(66476007)(53546011)(316002)(71200400001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:OSBPR01MB3445; H:OSBPR01MB4134.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:0;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: it.aoyama.ac.jp does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-ID: <D256597B7C3A724990D5F2CE8308C585@jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: it.aoyama.ac.jp
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 36b281f6-8774-47bc-ca5e-08d79e359c99
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 21 Jan 2020 05:48:59.5673 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: e02030e7-4d45-463e-a968-0290e738c18e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: XA9MUoJNC9k9Df/apPEY+w10+Pg3PLEmSUlnmqv/4RFHeveyRTZQJmAxI7tyx9vK+HrZKtVuX+v9S7qH1hPWvw==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: OSBPR01MB3445
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
On 21/01/2020 14:02, Doug Royer wrote: > On 1/20/20 12:32 PM, 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. >> >> Compare the diagrams in: >> https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-hallambaker-mesh-architecture-12.html >> >> With the originals in: >> https://mathmesh.com/Documents/draft-hallambaker-mesh-architecture.html >> >> Getting the diagrams to present properly is at least two weeks work >> for me on top of the weeks already spent. And I am probably not going >> to be the last person making this set of complaints. I am just the >> first person who developed specs that depend on having good diagrams >> in them. > > I think I understand your point, however the example you provided is not > really an SVG vs RFC-7996-SVG comparison. I also agree some of the > RFC-7996-SVG limitations seem extreme. > > The problem is the VISIO to RFC-7996-SVG conversion tool your using is > selecting a wider font than the original. The conversion tool would need > to get the em width, and match it up to a font with the same em width, > or adjust the font size. In SVG, there is actually a specific attribute for dealing with the variation in overall width of a text depending on the font. It is called textLength. Please see https://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/text.html#TextElementTextLengthAttribute. I do not know whether this attribute is allowed in the RFC subset of SVG, but it should be. Regards, Martin. > (1) It looks like VISIO places some object to absolute positions. > (2) VISIO seems to set some text objects relative to each other based > on em ('M') width. > (3) VISIO seems to set font size by the size of the 'M' (em) > character, rather than absolute point sizes. And different fonts have a > different em sizes. > > The same is going to happen if the browser viewing mathmesh.com does not > support the 'Calibri' font (unlikely, but the diagram will look messed up). > > Have you tried using monospace or sans-serif in VISIO? They are also > supported in RFC-7996. I am guessing you will have to tweak your VISIO > file after the change. > > Example, in the mathmesh.com SVG file (Calibri font): > > .st2 {fill:#000000;font-family:Calibri;font-size:1.00001em} > ... > <text x="11.64" y="430.18" class="st2" v:langID="1033"><v:paragraph > v:horizAlign="1"/><v:tabList/>ProfileMaster<v:newlineChar/><tspan > x="33.25" dy="1.2em" class="st3">Alice</tspan></text> > > Yet in the IETF.org version is in a different font (sans-serif font): > > <text x="11.64" y="430.18" fill="#000000" font-family="sans-serif" > font-size="1.00001em">ProfileMaster<tspan x="33.25" y="444.580144" > font-size="1em">Alice</tspan></text> > > NOTE: When I update the SVG file from mathmesh.com and change the > embedded CSS font from 'Calibri' (mathmesh.com) to 'sans-serif' > (IETF.org), it looks as broken as the IETF.org version. _______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
- [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