IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] Ensuring readable text in SVG diagrams

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 12 October 2021 00:52 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 D554F3A0818; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 17:52:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=iecc.com header.b=s6vBoaAk; dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=taugh.com header.b=0St0v8Wg
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 4ktC4qSkHxP5; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 17:52:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 996513A0816; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 17:52:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 348D7F380D; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 17:52:30 -0700 (PDT)
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 3BA26F380B for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 17:52:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=s6vBoaAk; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=0St0v8Wg
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 pwY9FpqqQ_Ra for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 17:52:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE51BE54CA for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 17:52:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 15639 invoked from network); 12 Oct 2021 00:52:19 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=3d15.6164dc43.k2110; bh=qyc63+vZsi3GDcYHv9vcbeGGzEh/CkPUncynOR8I6ZI=; b=s6vBoaAk/y7E0xw0LhF2wHu2gjELkgiScDtax9bVwV7vWRhxYDdw1z/UohwRaG6zVxBtrai40Yc9MU8yuzvMVY9M+uqFcBMyHWfgsrqOb2TnW6xao5721L/4DveFXhU7yEJrG9cikOBWw1SRA9CoHVevDfmMLJ/b3lrakXIbCg8+IVfcJtHi1WSBsGonIGEGQ9Yz3hO+NXDWxX1nmrnvy8eVFTmX0E2NjmYfhadxDNCf9Q/wfsi8ZSoDLbsek3CcqQo6C8ClOdYgbYeg7Mz9yKkdEuPIO0qtUotymBOCMXMJb098S9r+ChZw4flBfAlJnV9TeQAiduAPE+hBkl6AKg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=3d15.6164dc43.k2110; bh=qyc63+vZsi3GDcYHv9vcbeGGzEh/CkPUncynOR8I6ZI=; b=0St0v8Wg+dEpidjHG8YTx3bBeiULfa0VS2+EppvldVgk5QXjPZXxbCBrqtEdXBZ3coNPoyPQlwt0Altl91AJFN9r0X3qSspIPUxKQGWGhGfF9hz/b+CO2Y4v4LPwZU7b4Q0Vk0UyCEvuPITwgGEkYidQjwH6B1Cnq7JH6zO01PiPFTPTNAOoKrcRPPjIsRO6wCf05DyzF+oiF+ijO13oem1H+aSkhO/ZBlm2Kbs//hC2SEZr8CJ7C9mVIGPmTD/HPt6NfZRsqEc0GGAoYMxmEj6SweGuu+lPe31fmVG0WocfKou1QTSotF745Flls+HWLyITH/qa9Sg31OvIwn45kA==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 12 Oct 2021 00:52:19 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id CA4282A0CBA9; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 20:52:18 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 20:52:18 -0400
Message-Id: <20211012005218.CA4282A0CBA9@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
In-Reply-To: <276e49d8-4c36-f6e7-2704-3f04514cd25f@gmail.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Cleverness: minimal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Ensuring readable text in SVG diagrams
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
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="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

It appears that Brian E Carpenter  <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> said:
>On 07-Oct-21 12:55, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8899.html appears to use SVG quite effectively.  The diagrams really help illustrate the concepts in the document.
>> 
>> Lucas Pardue recently noted that appearances are not everything.  It is not possible (at least in browsers I have available to me) to search for text in
>these diagrams.  This is because every single character is placed separately as a distinct SVG element.

>It all depends on the drawing tool used. If you look at the figures in RFC8989, note that the text strings are searchable and selectable. In that case, the
>drawing tool was dia and it handles text as text. Other tools do much more eccentric things.

I took a look at the SVG in the XML and it appears that the unsearchable text puts each character in a separate <text ... attributes ...>x</text>
element, while the searchable text uses <text ... attrs ...><tspan>word</tspan></text>.

If that really is the difference, put each string in a <tspan/> I expect we could provide a lint tool or even have the submission
tool check and warn if the text appears to be fractured.

R's,
John
-- 
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
_______________________________________________
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