On Fri, Jun 6, 2025 at 2:03 PM Brian E Carpenter < brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 07-Jun-25 05:55, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 1:23 PM Brian E Carpenter < > brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > Eliot, > > > > On 05-Jun-25 18:20, Eliot Lear wrote: > > > Hi Paul > > > > > > On 04.06.2025 23:33, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > >> On Jun 4, 2025, at 00:24, Eliot Lear<l...@lear.ch <mailto: > l...@lear.ch>> wrote: > > >>>> Authors may include multiple versions of images or diagrams in > rfcxml. Publication formats should present the version that is best suited > to each format. In many cases, that will be an SVG. > > >>> Does this cover the case where the responsive interface would > indicate a dark mode version of an SVG? > > >> Is there is anything in any of the current RFCs that would cover > that? I don't think so, but I could be wrong. If there isn't, then this > SVG-specific document is certainly the wrong place to introduce it. > > > > > > I don't think anything currently *prohibits* such responsive > interfaces (images look a little jarring in dark mode). If the proposed > change does include such a prohibition, then that would be a change. I > think the new text may be going too far, but this could also be addressed > by clarifying the text below: > > > > > >> Authors may include multiple versions of images or diagrams in > rfcxml. Publication formats should present the version that is best suited > to each format. In many cases, that will be an SVG. > > > > > > to indicate that multiple SVGs that are specifically designed to > address certain display conditions like dark mode MAY be included. The > text MIGHT already allow for that, but it's not clear to me. > > > > The text doesn't forbid it, and neither does "SVGs must render in a > single static configuration without dynamic elements or responsive design > features" forbid it. Then "SVG tooling and implementation decisions are > made or overseen by the RPC" allows the RPC to do the right thing. > > > > > > I think upthread there was some argument that "Publication formats > should present the version that is best suited to each format" implied that > there should be one version per format, so perhaps some clarification is in > order. > > Then a subtle change will do it "Publication formats should present the > versions best suited to each format". > WFM. -Ekr Brian > > > > > -Ekr > > > > > > Brian > > -- > > rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rswg@rfc-editor.org > > > > To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org <mailto: > rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org> > > >
-- rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
