[rfc-i] The problem is SVG-Tiny

Michael Richardson mcr+ietf at sandelman.ca
Tue Jan 21 19:30:57 PST 2020

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill at hallambaker.com> wrote:
    > Looking at the responses, it appears that several things are being
    > conflated:

    > 1) The restriction prohibiting color in the diagrams.
    > 2) The restrictions on the use of fonts.
    > 3) The restriction to a subset of SVG-Tiny.

    > It is the last that requires a massive amount of time and effort to support.

Interesting, I was unaware of this conflation.
I agree with your take that SVG-Tiny is the wrong profile.

    > In 2014, when the decision was taken to use 'a profile' of SVG, it was
    > stated that the decision could be re-opened later. Well that is exactly
    > what I am doing now.

I think that it is reasonable to re-open the conversation.
I again, am concerned about changing too many things while we adapt to
xml-v3, but I think we should figure stuff out in the I-D series.

]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     mcr at sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

-------------- 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/20200121/21303cf4/attachment.asc>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list