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<[email protected]> 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.
Brian
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
