On Fri, Feb 7, 2025, at 08:33, Alexis Rossi wrote: > Hi all, > > This ID (co-authored with Nevil and Jean) is meant to obsolete 7996 > with text that more clearly specifies the policies for inclusion of > SVGs (and leaves out implementation details). Most of the policies in > here are drawn from 7996.
I think that this general direction is good. I've sent in a pull request that is part editorial, part substantive. https://github.com/alexisannerossi/id-svgsinrfcs/pull/3 The substantive part is to move some of the bullet points to a "suggestions" section, rather than make it policy. Specifically, the suggestion that the RPC favor accepting SVGs from common tools. I've also sharpened the policy section to highlight the two key points: 1. This empowers (or burdens) the RPC with the power to determine what SVGs are and are not acceptable. (In the text I propose, I've identified the potential for there to be both technical and editorial constraints. If it isn't obvious what that might mean, I'm happy to expand on these; I don't that taxonomy is exhaustive.) 2. That responsibility also comes with a responsibility to document the decisions that are made. Again, splitting that between policy requirements and guidance makes that easier. --- I've suggested some minor guidance: * That documentation serves a primary purpose (what will be accepted) and secondary purpose (help people produce good diagrams). * That the RPC periodically review and revise their practices. --- On the substance of the list, which I didn't touch in the above: * "SVGs in RFCs must render well on a wide variety of common devices" is untestable as worded. Should this instead state the aspiration that "as many people as possible should be able view the image"? That's still squishy, so maybe it can move to implementation guidance rather than policy. * The requirement to propagate SVGs to publication formats that support them is seems awkward. I think that the goal is: where there are multiple choices of how to present a figure -- and there is no reason to show multiple -- the best (that can be supported in the target format) shall be selected. You might mention that this is expected to be SVG in many cases. * With the changes I propose, the statement "SVG vocabulary and implementation may change over time and is not required to remain backwards-compatible." is a bit redundant. --- Other than that, I think that the general direction here is sound and I'm supportive of retiring RFC 7996. -- rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
