On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 8:51 AM Rob Sayre <say...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > > I don't see that we have come to agreement about which ones we are > trying to rule in or out > [... a list of things...] > > We should resolve these questions -- or at least the question of the > principle which is trying to guide them prior to trying to write text. > > I think we could say something like > > "The RPC will provide guidelines for the use of the static subset of > SVG1.1, as denoted by the feature string " > https://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/feature#SVG-static"; [SVG-STATIC]. Some > features of that subset may be prohibited, or have a limited set of > permissible values." > > I strongly object to specifying any specific version/flavor of SVG. We have already seen what happens when we make one of these RFCs too specific - some part of what we guess for the future turns out to be wrong, but then we're stuck with it for years because it's been enshrined in an RFC that ties everyone's hands even though we know how to address the issue. > That gets us out of all the animation and interactivity stuff, but still > allows CSS, so we can get dark/light mode working correctly. If you visit > that W3C link, you'll see the list of allowed features. > If animation and interactivity are what we want to prevent (which I think is correct), then let's just say that. We don't need to specifically allow CSS, as we haven't disallowed it. If the RPC agrees we can use CSS in specific ways, great. > > thanks, > Rob > > -- > rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org > To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org >
-- rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
