I think this is ready except for one question and two nits:
Question. We state that SVGs must remain static after publication. Does that also intend to forbid animation? I have no experience with animated SVG, but Google tells me that it's possible, although somehwat browser-dependent. In any case, the draft should be clear about whether the word "static" is intended to forbid animation. Nits follow: Perhaps the title should be "Scalable Vector Graphics in RFCs" ?
Abstract This document sets policy for the inclusion of SVGs...
Suggest: This document sets policy for the inclusion of diagrams in Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) format... Regards Brian Carpenter On 28-May-25 09:53, Pete Resnick wrote:
After our discussion, draft-editorial-rswg-svgsinrfcs-01 not only seems ready for WG adoption, but it also seems to have cleared up all outstanding issues for folks. Therefore, you're about to see two messages from the tracker: Adoption of the document followed by WGLC for the document. Consider this the start of a 2-week Working Group Last Call for draft-editorial-rswg-svgsinrfcs-01. Pete for the RSWG chairs
-- rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
