Re: RFC: require librsvg to implement SVG image support

[Kevin Barry]

> My conclusion is that PDF is the more "logical"
> successor to the inclusion of EPS.)

I'm not on the user list anymore so I didn't see the poll. Personally
I mostly work with EPS (for at least one publisher that I worked with
it was the only acceptable vector format), but I'm glad that we polled
users and I think it was the right thing to do. It's better to work
backwards from the user experience to the technical decisions than the
other way around. If you decide that svg is too much burden/debt/work
then that is fine and we should communicate it like that, and not
choose PDF because it's easier for us and then tell users it's what
they *should* want anyway.

> And this is exactly what scares me: I don't think we should go to all
> lengths here in order to fulfill a user poll.

I agree. But it's still good to know. The more demand there is for
something, the more it will be worth a little effort.

Re the RFC: my opinion on the inclusion of librsvg is that it's a good
idea if users want it. I haven't done cross compilation with rust, but
I have had some interaction with the tooling and I found it
convenient/easy to use. I don't think it will add a significant
burden. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about rust, but I'm happy
to help with it.

Kevin