[rfc-i] No, constraining to a custom SVG profile is not trivial

Michael Richardson mcr+ietf at sandelman.ca
Tue Jan 21 09:03:52 PST 2020


Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill at hallambaker.com> wrote:
    > But the other point I will make is that 2014 is six years ago and the
    > statement made then was that these issues could be reopened at a later
    > date. I am simply holding the group to the promise made then that
    > these issues can be revisited.

I would support revisiting the question of a SVG profile... in 2021.
Certainly by IETF110, with planning for that discussion at IETF109.
So... after we have a new permanent RFC-editor.

I think that the change to v3-XML under changing leadership is difficult
enough as it is.

In the meantime, in the I-D series, I think that we should tolerate a variety
of SVG inputs, and we should encourage monochrome inputs, but not require
them.

I tried SVG for some diagrams in a document a year or so ago, and the lack of
any way to shade or colour boxes immediately became a major PITA, with the
result that I went back to ASCII art (with the excellent asciio), as the SVG
didn't do enough for me that I was willing to abandon the ability to
communicate easily in text.
(I'm a regular DIA, and Inkscape user. Although, I still prefer xfig...)

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF at sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20200121/fe04ae18/attachment.asc>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list