IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 21 January 2020 17:04 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 55333120178 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 09:04:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.951
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.951 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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
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 zEOkJFLiihdC for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 09:04:01 -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 ADCF7120853 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 09:04:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 072CEF40710; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 09:03:53 -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 1F460F40710 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 09:03:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
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 vLxdIpHaZzIW for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 09:03:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD32BF406F5 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 09:03:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CF9C3897C for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 12:03:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8D49E99 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 12:03:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+Lwhy-AV_K5evzGdpDi-ynpLE4RxXCVB1HercickYfZaubg@mail.gmail.com>
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>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 12:03:52 -0500
Message-ID: <27103.1579626232@localhost>
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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1118119854213921744=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> wrote:
    > But the other point I will make is that 2014 is six years ago and the
    > statement made then was that these issues could be reopened at a later
    > date. I am simply holding the group to the promise made then that
    > these issues can be revisited.

I would support revisiting the question of a SVG profile... in 2021.
Certainly by IETF110, with planning for that discussion at IETF109.
So... after we have a new permanent RFC-editor.

I think that the change to v3-XML under changing leadership is difficult
enough as it is.

In the meantime, in the I-D series, I think that we should tolerate a variety
of SVG inputs, and we should encourage monochrome inputs, but not require
them.

I tried SVG for some diagrams in a document a year or so ago, and the lack of
any way to shade or colour boxes immediately became a major PITA, with the
result that I went back to ASCII art (with the excellent asciio), as the SVG
didn't do enough for me that I was willing to abandon the ability to
communicate easily in text.
(I'm a regular DIA, and Inkscape user. Although, I still prefer xfig...)

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-




_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email