On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 1:05 PM Rob Sayre <say...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 12:56 PM Brian E Carpenter < > brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> <rant> >> No. This is supposed to be a *policy* document in a *policy* WG. We >> shouldn't be getting into versions or profiles. Alexis is right. I defer to >> ekr's understanding of what is or isn't policy, but the fewer words we end >> up with the better. >> </rant> >> > > Well, try the follow-up: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rswg/zQyq4w1j4tWodD_S1D3RFZreRJ4/ > > It just uses the definitions from SVG itself, rather than inventing our > own terms in this document. They are not very specific. It does have to > cite an SVG document somewhere. This one isn't too specific: > > https://www.w3.org/TR/SVG2/ > > The document uses in other places: > > https://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/About > > but this document is from 2004, and of course contains versions right at > the top (which are circa 2004...). > Hi, sorry to hammer on this one. I did not agree with "This is supposed to be a *policy* document in a *policy* WG." But I have done my homework. So, firstly, that part of SVG2 is about what sort of SVG document we are supposed to produce. A policy. <https://www.w3.org/TR/SVG2/conform.html> "Graphics defined with SVG have many different applications. As a result, not all software that uses SVG will have the same features. Conformance to the SVG specification is therefore not a binary matter; sofware may be conforming within a restricted feature set." We can use that section to set policy about which kind of SVG we intend. But, then I thought ...wait, don't we have a document that specifies the HTML copies? Yes. We have RFC 7990 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7990> I think we can all agree that it is a policy document. I went to look for the "HTML" it refers to, and there is a normative reference to RFC 7992. However, there is a bug in the reference. I filed it: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8455> If you make it to RFC 7992, you'll find the HTML reference is: <https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-html5-20141028/> But this gives you a popup that says: "This version is outdated! For the latest version, please look at https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/."; That leads you to: <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/> where the "SVG Element" is SVG2. <https://svgwg.org/svg2-draft/struct.html#SVGElement> [intermission] But we're not done. RFC 7990 has been obsoleted by RFC 9720. <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9720> This one doesn't specify a version of HTML at all, and does not include a reference to HTML of any kind. I am pretty sure that is on purpose. But it still has a reference to RFC 7996 which has a reference to SVG Tiny 1.2 <https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-SVGTiny12-20081222/> [intermission] I think it is ok to link to <https://www.w3.org/TR/SVG2/> The document draft-editorial-rswg-svgsinrfcs-02 currently normatively references <https://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/About> from 2004, which has a link to <https://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/>. That last link advanced 7 years after 2004. So I think The SVG2 link is suitably vague. thanks, Rob
-- rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
