Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] What do do about SVG
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 14 May 2021 04:43 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 518B53A2224 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 May 2021 21:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 WVd-oLgk-6pK for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 May 2021 21:43:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x636.google.com (mail-pl1-x636.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::636]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F05B3A2223 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 May 2021 21:43:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x636.google.com with SMTP id n3so3496328plf.7 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 May 2021 21:43:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=vN3/uBVXGqWDljeOFEzD97BxXYwiL+vfIuIESzoiBxo=; b=r4uagabXQw9dY04Kxlx4GyRU0Ane+vfqHywxRK//W2KhfdNfI1xIBJVAkBjBB2ZP7O aUDMrJocs/D1e1bfaMroGTx/DDAPj1ogtJ+pmDpSmpXPkPFji4JMFcc5/dVxAq4tHS0Q knmYPpG3QL6yZcroNdaKYWy/Urtwb0ASUiajvwrEq+kUlSKolX+ez8vzmieAlQu2UYmf IJAcKPkqkF7/PYMPn2YS6pFENxoAYBEvZXOHcen5KHnCS6YHaYGzpCGyouW1IAXR21Sv ESzlfRvRt9tO+rAgNX4DXQFo0mmBlky0l5ORCHZcwWvH+d4gCiepiYBy2NI7JA77ymI5 bz8w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=vN3/uBVXGqWDljeOFEzD97BxXYwiL+vfIuIESzoiBxo=; b=rj4TyYOwd2M4docwqSV7alE1dHS3Dv+TSE0JrVOAi9ZcGOPcMSqHSH01kcmcqpZVXW HsvjuSYNc4h5v5gHeL0hHhFgDlZ5/3+mPYglQTq0UhHP1rWuF+lm1a7JiTspjNem0CUg cSDODMzLdiS4zjtudUWK4BNP7+6zLwg8FSj1mJrG/qDwCIC7ivlWSU+qEVJekR5wFflS YdLyiHKFaAkWymqQlCY8V7TBXSVlzFAiQIdRLQNf0BrXgz3VD2vWLcs3y7ecJnjsK5bU 8kZ8xIA/xGC1RzhQow6W9TBraO8JkwBNL9F4WcqpCKon/E56EYNKEb2bJVfs2o+Rm9OH iQkA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531NX26YEKRpYlV2ZD+q8w8oohzjvfEA35tBQFmmPGkxHfYdiW9o ATaRaXnBkMVsBRRwhKbBwAc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw+2cF2SyRrLalDV4Fe0ExdhSiNYnNG5eKdvH+aCJjBT2MR0ohLhrz3xfLcH0aDzdMJjob+zg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:c24c:b029:ee:f427:9808 with SMTP id 12-20020a170902c24cb02900eef4279808mr44173267plg.58.1620967385357; Thu, 13 May 2021 21:43:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e003:100d:901:80b2:5c79:2266:e431? ([2406:e003:100d:901:80b2:5c79:2266:e431]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id mt24sm2861910pjb.18.2021.05.13.21.43.02 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 13 May 2021 21:43:04 -0700 (PDT)
To: Nevil Brownlee <nevil.brownlee@gmail.com>, "HANSEN, TONY L" <tony@att.com>
Cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, Tools Team Discussion <tools-discuss@ietf.org>, RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
References: <f564019-d8b1-76c2-2768-c135d834dc32@iecc.com> <763b8195-6139-fb20-aa4e-2b4d89b5681c@gmail.com> <75d1b100-e761-e9bb-2ae0-02266c86b499@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <6BDFA0EA-D6F1-4443-B771-9B1A0AD56713@tzi.org> <c6dc75da-0b88-bc68-39fe-17887411b97f@gmail.com> <550c00a4-171d-bf12-b1f5-51dcc639359c@gmail.com> <8a637f4b4c7e41c99169fdfc3bdb0290@SYBPR01MB6859.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com> <CACOFP=hC0poW6ZKCAsh=r5A5orB3OGxDsQLadEb=zXnun4n9VA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <95541255-19f0-69a6-1db6-83695e3bff35@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 16:43:00 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CACOFP=hC0poW6ZKCAsh=r5A5orB3OGxDsQLadEb=zXnun4n9VA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/hYD7UgqGaqXlIo6oXkyw3mbXjYE>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] What do do about SVG
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 04:43:12 -0000
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 <tony@att.com> wrote: >> >> On 5/13/2021, 12:24 AM, "rfc-interest on behalf of Brian E Carpenter" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org on behalf of brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> 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://pypi.org/project/svgcheck/. 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 >> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest > > >
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] What do do about SVG Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] What do do about SVG Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] What do do about SVG Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] What do do about SVG HANSEN, TONY L
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] What do do about SVG Leonard Rosenthol
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] What do do about SVG Nevil Brownlee
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] What do do about SVG Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] What do do about SVG Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] What do do about SVG Leonard Rosenthol
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] What do do about SVG HANSEN, TONY L
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] What do do about SVG Robert Sparks
- Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] What do do about SVG Phillip Hallam-Baker