add support for SVG rasterization

[Princesseuh]

Changes

Based of #15154, original branch didn't have push rights for maintainers. This is the same PR just rebased of next instead of main.

Testing

See original PR

Docs

withastro/docs#13039

[changeset-bot]

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: a37ecd3

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

[github-actions]

⚠️ Package Trust Level Decreased

Caution

Decreased trust levels may indicate a higher risk of supply chain attacks. Please review these changes carefully.

📦 Package	🔒 Before	🔓 After
@cloudflare/kv-asset-handler	trusted-with-provenance	none
@cloudflare/unenv-preset	trusted-with-provenance	none
workerd	trusted-with-provenance	none
miniflare	trusted-with-provenance	none
youch	provenance	none
@cloudflare/workerd-darwin-64	trusted-with-provenance	none
@cloudflare/workerd-darwin-arm64	trusted-with-provenance	none
@cloudflare/workerd-linux-64	trusted-with-provenance	none
@cloudflare/workerd-linux-arm64	trusted-with-provenance	none
@cloudflare/workerd-windows-64	trusted-with-provenance	none
wrangler	trusted-with-provenance	none

[Princesseuh]

Waiting on docs approvals on both the changeset and the upgrade guide

[sarah11918]

OK, I've caught up with the past PR and this one and have some clarifying questions.

Do we expect this to be a breaking change? This feels more like adding new functionality, and the people whose code would break are people who set a format on an SVG expecting it to do something when it doesn't? (before this PR) And since it had no effect, they didn't bother to remove it?

If this is a breaking change, and we reasonably expect people are using existing functionality (they have added a format knowing fully well it doesn't do anything), then we need to properly guide people to update their code as necessary. Since that seems kind of weird when I type it out, ("format actually does something now!") I do want to make sure that's what we're talking about here.

I'm not sure we have to cater to people who "tried to convert, realized the prop didn't do anything, so just left it there" since that's not expected usage in the first place. Is there something I'm missing here in how you were expecting that people were using format before?

Is it that someone might not know an image was an SVG, but just treats "all their images" the same, not knowing what they might be? UPDATE: looks like from the docs PR that is is!

OK, in that case, this changeset can just point to the upgrade guide entry that follows a one line pattern focusing on the breaking change with a link to the upgrade guide entry, like:

The default Sharp image service will now attempt to transform SVGs - ([v6 upgrade guidance](https://v6.docs.astro.build/en/guides/upgrade-to/v6/#anchor-link))

For breaking change guidance, it's less about "hey, new feature!" and more about "Hey, this acts differently now". So, something like the above (make it more accurate/relevant as necessary!) is the kind of thing that helps people deal with something that has changed behavior on them.

THOUGHT: since usually do want to hype up features, how about a major and a minor changeset here? The major is about the changing of behaviour on people, but the minor is "cool new feature!" and that one doesn't have to focus on what might go wrong for people, but can celebrate the new functionality! 🥳

[stelcodes]

It is kind of halfway in between a new feature and a bugfix, but I think going with a major changeset and a "new feature!" note makes the most sense.

[jcayzac]

Do we expect this to be a breaking change? This feels more like adding new functionality, and the people whose code would break are people who set a format on an SVG expecting it to do something when it doesn't? (before this PR) And since it had no effect, they didn't bother to remove it?

@sarah11918 Kind of, yes. Some people may have not bothered "because if it's SVG it will be a no-op anyway", so this would break those expectations.

"format actually does something now!"

🤣 …but yes, it's exactly that 😄

since usually do want to hype up features, how about a major and a minor changeset here? The major is about the changing of behaviour on people, but the minor is "cool new feature!" and that one doesn't have to focus on what might go wrong for people, but can celebrate the new functionality! 🥳

Could you elaborate? The two changesets would still land the same (major) release, right?

[sarah11918]

OK, after finishing up the docs PR, I think using our upgrade guide format is sufficient for the changelog here!

[sarah11918]

Approving for docs!