On Tue, Feb 11, 2025, at 06:15, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > However, I disagree with you that the text in the -00 draft is a > suggestion. Rather, I think it should be two distinct policy items: > > * The RPC's implementation should strive to allow SVGs produced by > widely used drawing tools.
I can live with that, though I might prefer a formulation that tries to get closer to the true requirement, which is that it should be straightforward for an author to produce a diagram that is acceptable. That's why I moved that to the suggestions section, because it is one degree further removed than I preferred. (I don't think that this is a controversial thing, we're just quibbling over whether to mandate this or rely on the good judgment of the RPC.) > * Where possible, implementation decisions should focus on specifying > what is disallowed, rather than attempting to specify exactly what is > allowed. I am not a big fan of this formulation. In some cases, it might be appropriate to say precisely what is allowed. Consider the a point that is perhaps controversial: I would prefer that we said "you must use only black and white" rather than say "you shall not use colours other than black and white" (if that is the policy). To my mind, this text is an over-reaction to the failure of RFC 7996. That failed because it was an attempt to produce a fully comprehensive enumeration of what is allowed (that is, a profile), which was done without due consideration to the first point above (make it easy to produce acceptable diagrams). I don't feel too strongly about this, but I'd prefer to strike that text. -- rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
