On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 2:34 AM Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote:
> TBH, all of this wordsmithing seems premature, because it's > still not clear to me what the text is trying to say. There are > a set of concrete features one might imagine implementing > here, and I don't see that we have come to agreement about > which ones we are trying to rule in or out: > > - Scaling: Yes (probably?) > Yes > - Rearrangement : Maybe? ISTR some said no, Alexis said yes? > I don't care, happy to leave it up to RPC > - Hiding and showing elements based on size: Probably not? > No > - Dark mode: Maybe? MT was arguing yes, but I just heard Jean say maybe > not? > I don't care, happy to leave it up to RPC > - Animation: No > No > - Direct interaction with the image: No > No > > 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. > > If the intent is just to defer all of these questions to the RPC, then the > text > should actually say so (I would probably object to this, but perhaps I'm > in the minority on that). However, I don't think it's helpful to just have > vague text that doesn't actually provide the answer without an explicit > delegation to the RPC. > This document specifically hands technical implementation decisions to the RPC. The intro says, "The RFC Publication Center (RPC) is responsible for making SVG tooling and implementation decisions." Why would we need to specify it again in this bullet point as well? > > -Ekr > > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 8:58 PM Brian E Carpenter < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On 11-Jun-25 14:17, Alexis Rossi wrote: >> > Okay, in an earlier email in this thread [1] Paul Hoffman (I think) >> suggested wording like >> > >> > * SVG diagrams may not be interactive or have multimedia or other >> similar elements. >> > >> > What about that for new wording? >> >> That WFM too. >> >> Brian >> >> > >> > Alexis >> > >> > [1] >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rswg/iqz2v05Wt-ncTJUsEvITw_50RGY/ < >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rswg/iqz2v05Wt-ncTJUsEvITw_50RGY/> >> > >> > On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 5:37 PM Jean Mahoney < >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On 6/10/25 4:55 PM, Alexis Rossi wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 2:24 PM Brian Carpenter >> > > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> >> 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, <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> > > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> 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 -- [email protected] <mailto: >> [email protected]> <mailto:rswg@rfc- <mailto:rswg@rfc-> >> > > editor.org <http://editor.org>> >> > > To unsubscribe send an email to >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> > > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto: >> [email protected]>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
