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

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

-- 
-----------------------------------
Nevil Brownlee, Taupo, NZ