Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] What do do about SVG

["HANSEN, TONY L" <[e-mail]>]

Thank you, Nevil, Brian

On 5/14/2021, 12:43 AM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    Hi Nevil,

    I'll write off list with the things I discovered. Some of it was quite
    a long time ago, so I'll have to look back at my emails to Jim.

    One thing for now though. I'm illiterate in RelaxNG, but it seems
    to me that <style> is definitely allowed in two or three places
    in RFC7996, and it isn't even defined in svgcheck/word_properties.py
    so it's no wonder that svgcheck rejects it.

    Regards
       Brian

    On 14-May-21 16:23, Nevil Brownlee wrote:
    > Hi Brian and Tony:
    > 
    > I'm the guy who wrote the original version of svgcheck.py.
    > Jim Schaad did the production engineering on it, and I worked with him
    > to make sure it was compliant with the RNC schema that appears in RFC
    > 7996.
    > 
    > I recently downloaded svgcheck (from the RFC Editor site, I think),
    > that's version 0.6.0;  I could work through that to fix the problems
    > Brian reported.  However, it will need someone on the Tools team to
    > get the fixed version back into their repository.
    > 
    > Please let me know if you'd like me to make the changes to svgcheck
    > (it will take a week or two though).
    > 
    > Cheers, Nevil
    > 
    > 
    > On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 12:29 AM HANSEN, TONY L <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >>
    >> On 5/13/2021, 12:24 AM, "rfc-interest on behalf of Brian E Carpenter" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
    >>
    >> After some investigation, I've understood that this particular problem
    >> is because svgcheck doesn't allow <style> as a child of <svg>. Nor, after
    >> some experiments, as a child of <path>, even though the RelaxNG in
    >> RFC7996 appears to allow it. (Also, when <style> defines a color, and
    >> I patch svgcheck/word_properties.py to allow <style>, svgcheck doesn't
    >> seem to detect the color elements inside <style>.)
    >>
    >> In the course of this I found another instance of a particular
    >> bug in svgcheck (failure to increment errorCount).
    >>
    >> So we have the facts that
    >> (a) svgcheck is buggy;
    >> (b) it doesn't implement the RelaxNG in RFC7996;
    >> (c) sadly, we lost the maintainer of the code;
    >> (d) our subset of TinySVG is very hard to generate with most drawing tools;
    >> (e) experience shows that special SVG mangling programs are needed to prepare files for inclusion in RFCs;
    >> (f) we've been told that TinySVG is no longer alive at W3C;
    >> (g) browsers appear to be fully competent at interpreting full SVG.
    >>
    >> How can we make progress on resolving this?
    >>
    >> As an FYI, I see three maintainers listed for svgcheck at https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://pypi.org/project/svgcheck/__;!!BhdT!3hOxHzMKjodMzADvfA9H8y70wYlv3lgGYPIoeh7v2-GPsHPlZ0GobwwsCQ$ . Can we poke them to address some of these issues, in particular a&b? Or provide them pull requests for the code?
    >>
    >> d,e,f are somewhat intractable unless we throw it out entirely and move to full SVG. g is one argument for that.
    >>
    >> However, there were several reasons behind going with a subset, laid out in section 2 of RFC 7996 and section 3.2 of RFC 6949. Any movement to support a larger version of SVG needs to address these requirements first.
    >>
    >> Tony
    >>
    >> _______________________________________________
    >> rfc-interest mailing list
    >> [e-mail]
    >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest__;!!BhdT!3hOxHzMKjodMzADvfA9H8y70wYlv3lgGYPIoeh7v2-GPsHPlZ0GOjT-1tQ$ 
    > 
    > 
    >