[rfc-i] iab-xml2rfc-02: SVG
Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
jhildebr at cisco.com
Mon Feb 15 10:27:28 PST 2016
I agree that the introduction for draft-iab-svg-rfc needs to reference SVG Tiny 1.2, not SVG Full in any version. It appears as if SVG 1.2 is structured as *additions* to SVG Tiny, not the other way around.
I didn't find the existing text as confusing as you, since it's pretty clear that the intent is to do a subset of SVG Tiny, which is in turn a subset of SVG 1.1 (which is included as an informative reference). However, it doesn't help this document to go into any of the historical bits of W3C process. Removing all SVG 1.1 references, and making sure the only SVG reference is to W3C.REC-SVGTiny12-20081222 tightens up the doc in a useful way.
On 2/14/16, 12:34 PM, "rfc-interest on behalf of Doug Royer" <rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org on behalf of douglasroyer at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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*
>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
More information about the rfc-interest