The goal here is to not cause images to become illegible. If we’re going to carve out the exception below, it may make sense to carve out an additional one to allow for alternate images that have been designed for dark mode. I don’t know if that is testable in JS at this point.
Eliot > On 30 May 2025, at 00:46, Martin Thomson <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Fri, May 30, 2025, at 07:57, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> On 30-May-25 01:55, Paul Hoffman wrote: >>> On May 28, 2025, at 19:36, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> I think that's substantively fine, but in that case it would probably be >>>> helpful >>>> to have this text more explicitly prohibit it. >>>> >>>> Perhaps something like: >>>> "SVGs must render in a single static configuration without dynamic >>>> elements or responsive design features". >>>> >>>> This would also be intended to prohibit dark mode type stuff. >>> >>> I like this wording. > > This works for me. On one condition (that doesn't affect the text). That > is, this cannot prevent the outer HTML from exploiting response design (like > dark mode), just the images. > > It would be unfortunate if the dark mode adaptations we use in existing SVGs > were to break, but I think that there's value in having that option ... at > the HTML layer. > > PR: https://github.com/alexisannerossi/id-svgsinrfcs/pull/10 > > For anyone wanting to check out dark mode: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9113#section-5.1 and check out the > dark/light selector in the top-right of the page (on desktop browsers anyway). > > -- > rswg mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > -- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
