[rfc-i] Preparing for allowing v3 submissions into the repository (was Re: [xml2rfc-dev] Alternate artwork vocabulary and post preptool)
henrik at levkowetz.com
Thu Feb 7 22:50:55 PST 2019
On 2019-02-08 00:03, Martin Thomson wrote:
> Hi Robert,
> What is the status of inline SVG?
> For the purposes of authoring, a separate file is great. The preptool
> might inline the file to ensure that there is just one file to
> A data: URI is the worst possible option from a usability
> perspective. It's also less efficient.
Agreed. Which is what the described change is aimed at avoiding. It would
in all cases let the preptool inline the SVG, instead of having to stash it
in a data: URI when there is also ascii-art fallback content.
The original discussion on xml2rfc-dev has more details.
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2019, at 07:07, Robert Sparks wrote:
>> The change proposed in this thread (to allow the preptool to incorporate
>> SVG from external files as artwork rather than a data URI) seems right,
>> and important.
>> The IESG is ready to allow v3 submissions into the repository as soon as
>> the tooling is ready. The tooling is very close. As noted in the thread,
>> our goal is to have the submission tool accept a standalone file (rather
>> than solve how to allow submission of multiple components.)
>> I'm asking that this change be made to the toolchain.
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the rfc-interest