[rfc-i] Proposed Program Description for RFC Editor evolution program

Phillip Hallam-Baker phill at hallambaker.com
Wed Jan 15 12:19:57 PST 2020


On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 1:40 PM Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Yes, I know a clique decided that they only wanted black and white
> images.
>
> What clique was that again?
>
> Oh yes, I remember, it was the people who bothered to express an opinion
> on the open mailing list where the format was debated at great length,
> including the reasons for excluding greyscale and colour.
>
> I have some code for a heuristic to convert greyscale and colour to pure
> b&w if you want it, although I was hoping it would be added as an option to
> the normal tool. That said, SVG is a horrible mess when you dig into it and
> the tools that create it are inconsistent. This topic does need more work
> but b&w seems to be the least of our problems.
>

SVG seems to have been deployed in the Web browsers with a high degree of
consistency.

Tiny SVG is already a profile. And the IETF has a profile on a profile
which is written in an entirely different schema language and the RFC does
not match the tool.

It is not the colour conversion that is the issue at this point, it is the
profiling that was imposed as a result of that decision.

One of the things people keep saying to me when I start talking about the
User Interface is 'we don't do that here'. Well why define a new graphics
format in that case rather than using the existing, widely supported
standard?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20200115/9c47770e/attachment.html>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list