[rfc-i] SVG/A specification.
phill at hallambaker.com
Fri Jan 24 12:24:04 PST 2020
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 2:00 PM Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth at adobe.com>
> >> Style
> > It presents a problem for validation and for the aggregation of XML2RFC
> + SVG* to on XML document. Basically, it means that the validator has to
> understand the style sheet language.
> >Since the output language is XML2RFC which prohibits style, it seems
> simplest to simply flatten all this out.
> OK, I’ll buy that for Stylesheet. But not for style. Style is simple –
> it’s just ‘key/value’ pairs.
Yes, it probably doesn't need to be made a requirement.
Though if style is allowed, it will have to be constrained to the set of
allowed attribute values, we don't get that from schema validation unless
the attributes are converted.
> > But the original reason for this was not actually the archival part but
> the accessibility part.
> >It is much easier to restrict attributes to a limited palette of colors
> if there is a single means of expressing them.
> That may be true for colors **but** style also is where you define things
> like line-width, line-joins. dash patterns, font weight, etc.
> And what about the ID restriction?
That was a typo, the tool currently suppresses id, class and style. I meant
to delete id from that list and deleted style instead.
The id is not needed for SVG-Tiny and the easiest way to avoid duplication
was to delete 'em.
> So the only way to make this happen would be to expand the SVG Font
> definitions inside the diagrams. Which isn't going to happen. Pity.
> No, the correct way to do this is simply to “embed” the font, as I
> recommended. See
Yes but I don't think the group is going to go for that for the same reason
they resist using data: urls for PNG.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rfc-interest