Subject: [rfc-i] Sooo has anyone tried actually printing the new HTML style??

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 22:54:55 -0400

I just completed my draft for the naming workshop. Seems to work fine on
the screen but when I print... white text on white... argh!!!

I am using the stylesheet from this with very minor tweakage:
https://rfc-format.github.io/draft-iab-rfc-css-bis/

Anyone skilled in stylesheetery?

Example attached. This was produced from a Word document source. The next
step being to generate xml2rfcv2 and v3 output, then markdown.

I believe that the tool should work correctly with markdown or xml2rfc v3
input.
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 13:38:30 +1000

Worked for me.  Firefox on Windows.  I can produce a PDF, though it's
a tad large.

On 11 August 2017 at 12:54, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I just completed my draft for the naming workshop. Seems to work fine on the
> screen but when I print... white text on white... argh!!!
>

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 00:13:48 -0400

I was having issues on Chrome and Edge. Commenting out these lines did the
trick.

  body {
    font-family: 'Noto Serif', "Times New Roman", Times, serif;
    width: 100%;
  }

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:38 PM, Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> the

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 00:25:35 -0400

OK so here is the bigger problem. Firefox and Chrome do not appear to
recognize the scoped attribute on stylesheets. That is serious because it
means that the only way to display SVGs reliably is going to be to either
include them as external objects or process the style sheet and SVG to
force uniqueness.

Worse still is that even doing that, the results of including the
stylesheet are different to linking externally. Even with a copy and paste.

I would suggest MHTML but support to save in that format has disappeared
from all the browsers I use. This is not looking like a happy camper
situation.

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:13 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:38 PM, Martin Thomson <[email-masked]
> > wrote:
>

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 15:04:30 +1000

Scoped stylesheets isn't a feature that you can rely on.  Firefox does
(or did) support scoped stylesheets, but it wasn't widely implemented
or used and has several problems.

On 11 August 2017 at 14:25, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> include them as external objects or process the style sheet and SVG to force
> uniqueness.
>
> Worse still is that even doing that, the results of including the stylesheet
> are different to linking externally. Even with a copy and paste.
>
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:13 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:38 PM, Martin Thomson
>> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:54:15 -0400

This is likely to be a showstopper for folk trying to write tools using
lightweight lexical analysis.

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:04 AM, Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> force
> stylesheet
> >>> On 11 August 2017 at 12:54, Phillip Hallam-Baker <
> [email-masked]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > I believe that the tool should work correctly with markdown or
> xml2rfc
> >>> > v3
> >>> > input.
> >>> >
> >>> >

---

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 10:17:26 -0700

On 10 Aug 2017, at 21:25, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

> recognize the scoped attribute on stylesheets.

Where do we use scoped attributes in the new CSS? It sounds like we 
should get rid of it in the -bis documents.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 19:55:33 +0200

> should get rid of it in the -bis documents.

As far as I understand, we don't.

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 19:56:08 +0200

On 2017-08-11 18:54, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> ...
Please be more specific.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 15:39:12 -0400

The problem is that SVG drawings almost always have an embedded style
sheet. And anyone who has three drawings in a document is likely to use the
same tool for all three. And the tools generally create styles named st1,
st2, etc and restart the numbering for each document.

I had no problem either. Not until I tried to use the tool on a real paper
that has four diagrams and then it went all kablooey.

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Where do we use scoped attributes in the new CSS? It sounds like we should
> get rid of it in the -bis documents.
>
> --Paul Hoffman
>

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 22:01:12 +0200

On 2017-08-11 21:39, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> sheet. And anyone who has three drawings in a document is likely to use 
> the same tool for all three. And the tools generally create styles named 
> st1, st2, etc and restart the numbering for each document.
> 
> I had no problem either. Not until I tried to use the tool on a real 
> paper that has four diagrams and then it went all kablooey.

Thanks for the details.

AFAICT, 
<https://www.greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7996.html#rfc.section.A> 
doesn't allow a style element in RFC SVG - is this something we should 
have allowed? And if so, how would it be expected to work in real world 
user agents?

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 18:48:01 -0400

Without a <style> element, svg is unusable. It is an integral part of SVG.
All the tools that produce SVG are likely to create them.

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> AFAICT, <https://www.greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7996.html#rfc.section.A>
> doesn't allow a style element in RFC SVG - is this something we should have
> allowed? And if so, how would it be expected to work in real world user
> agents?
>
> Best regards, Julian
>

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2017 09:11:36 +0200

On 2017-08-12 00:48, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> Without a <style> element, svg is unusable. It is an integral part of 
> SVG. All the tools that produce SVG are likely to create them.
> ...

dot (graphviz) does not.

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2017 11:06:24 -0400

>> SVG. All the tools that produce SVG are likely to create them.
​Visio does and more importantly, stylesheets are an integral part of the
SVG spec.
​

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2017 15:43:20 -0500

On 8/11/17 3:01 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> sheet. And anyone who has three drawings in a document is likely to 
>> use the same tool for all three. And the tools generally create 
>> styles named st1, st2, etc and restart the numbering for each document.
>>
> have allowed? And if so, how would it be expected to work in real 
> world user agents?

That would seem to be an inconsistency between the prose and the schema; 
see <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7996#section-2.1>. I am almost 100% 
certain that the prose is what is intended. Relax NG schema isn't really 
my strength -- Julian, can you file an erratum and see that 
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/format/SVG-1.2-RFC.rnc> gets updated?

/a

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2017 22:46:39 +0200

You are misreading the spec (IMHO):

>    <style> is a set of CSS attributes that are commonly used (by SVG
>            drawing applications).  They are not part of SVG Tiny 1.2
>            but are included here for compatibility.  Note that

This is not the same thing as a style element (but yes, the chosen 
notation is very confusing).

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 20:05:00 +1000

On 13 August 2017 at 06:46, Julian Reschke <[email-masked]> wrote:
> This is not the same thing as a style element (but yes, the chosen notation
> is very confusing).

That notational convention goes beyond unfortunate into truly
abominable.  That alone is worth an erratum.
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

---

From: Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 04:04:01 +0900

> notation is very confusing).

In agreement with Martin Thomson, I'd call that a heavy miswrite, rather 
than a misread :-(.

Just as an example, the most straightforward style sheet for a simple 
SVG diagram could be something like:

<style>
   text { fill: black; stroke: none; }
   rect { fill: none; stroke: black; stroke-width: 1pt; }
</style>

That will save a lot of individual settings such as:

<text fill='black' stroke='none'>...</text>

Of course, there are some more creative ways to use styles in SVG, but 
this is just to show that even for a very, very simple diagram with some 
boxes and some text, the style element can be extremely helpful.

Regards,   Martin.