On 07.06.2025 00:59, Eric Rescorla wrote:
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> >
OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
