On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 9:45 AM Alexis Rossi <alexisrossir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 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. > Hmm, I guess I don't feel that strongly. The first Editor's Draft of SVG2 (successor to 1.1) was published in April 2012, and they are still working on it, although it doesn't seem like they've touched it in a few years. Implementations do seem to add SVG2 features piecemeal. But I did notice SVG2 (Editor's Draft 08 March 2023) has a nice summary of what I think we want in its "Processing Modes" section: <https://svgwg.org/svg2-draft/conform.html#secure-static-mode> That doesn't use the W3C URI-heavy style that 1.1 did. Since we're having trouble getting clarity here, a bullet list like that might help. thanks, Rob
-- rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
