[rfc-i] iab-xml2rfc-02: SVG

Doug Royer douglasroyer at gmail.com
Sun Feb 14 11:34:06 PST 2016

And this:

 SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) has been developed by W3C, the World
   Wide Web Consortium; its current standard is SVG 1.1 Full
   [W3C.REC-SVG11-20110816].  This document defines SVG 1.2 RFC, an SVG
   profile (i.e. a subset of SVG) that is suitable for RFC line

However "SVG 1.2", is tiny-SVG:  https://www.w3.org/TR/SVGTiny12/

'This' in the paragraph above, I read as saying 'iam-xml2rfc', defines a
SVG-subset. Confusing to me.

The rfc-svg document defines a *subset* of SVG 1.2 that is suitable for
RFC line drawings.

   tiny-SVG (Version 1.2) is a subset of SVG (1.1).
   rfc-svg (1.2) is a subset of tiny-SVG (1.2) [not of SVG-1.1]

I was confused.

And the statement about RFC-6949:

"Graphics may include ASCII art and a more complex form to be
defined, such as SVG line art [SVG]. Color and grayscale will not
be accepted. RFCs must correctly display in monochromatic black-
and-white to allow for monochrome displays, black-and-white
printing, and support for visual disabilities."

Made me think that that is how it *used* to be (and is changing).

And to make it even more confusing, this describes SVG-1.1
"Mobile SVG Profiles: SVG Tiny and SVG Basic"

Which says (in part):  This document defines two mobile profiles of SVG
1.1. The first profile, SVG Tiny, is defined to be suitable for
cellphones; the second profile, SVG Basic, is suitable for PDAs. ...

Version number confusion.

I am not saying things are wrong, I am saying its not clear to me which
subset of which SVG is being talked about. At least until I did a *lot*
more reading.

On 02/13/2016 01:45 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 12 Feb 2016, at 10:59, Doug Royer wrote:
>> After reading iab-xml2rfc it gave me the impression that the full SVG
>> (1.1) could be used.
> Can you point out where you got that impression. We should certainly
> make sure that doesn't happen. I ask because we explicitly say "The use
> of SVG in Internet-Drafts and RFCs is covered in much more detail in
> [SVGforRFCs]", which itself is really clear that this is a subset. But
> if there are other places, we can fix that.
> --Paul Hoffman


Doug Royer - (http://DougRoyer.US)
DouglasRoyer at gmail.com

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4251 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20160214/7e7afd56/attachment-0001.p7s>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list