On 6/10/25 4:55 PM, Alexis Rossi wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 2:24 PM Brian Carpenter
<brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Make the policy "generally not allowed" and that would leave the RPC
free to apply common sense.
(via tiny screen & keyboard)
Regards,
Brian Carpenter
Okay so like this perhaps?
OLD
"SVGs must render in a single static configuration without dynamic
elements or responsive design features."
NEW
"The content of SVGs should be static. Dynamic elements or responsive
design features are generally not allowed."
[JM] We should emphasize which responsive design features we don't want
to support, like animation, because we do want to allow scaling, which
also falls into responsive design. Other responsive design concepts,
such as including CSS to support dark mode, don't appear to be necessary
(SVGs in current RFCs look okay in dark mode). I would need to more info
to determine if SVG CSS should be disallowed generally. It seems like it
would be helpful for improving accessibility, but maybe that can all be
inherited from the HTML CSS?
NEW
The content of SVGs should be static. Dynamic elements or responsive
design features that support animation are generally not allowed.
Best regards,
Jean
Alexis
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025, 09:17 Eliot Lear, <l...@lear.ch
<mailto:l...@lear.ch>> wrote:
__
I would suggest that the proscriptions of video, audio, and
animations are not controversial. The only aspect of responsive
design I really think we're talking about is dark mode, in that
if it is supported it must be done in a way that is legible.
Maybe that is a bit TOO prescriptive, tho.
--
rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rswg@rfc-
editor.org>
To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
<mailto:rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org>
--
rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
