118, can we beat it anyone?
<svg viewBox="-32 -32 64 64" style="background: #f60"><path fill="#fff" d="m0-5l-8-12h-7L-3 1v16h6V1l12-18H8z"/></svg>
<svg viewBox="-32 -32 64 64" style="background: #f60"><path fill="#fff" d="m0-5l-8-12h-7L-3 1v16h6V1l12-18H8z"/></svg>
<svg viewBox="-32-32 64 64" style="background:#f60"><path fill="#fff" d="m0-5-8-12h-7L-3 1v16h6V1l12-18H8z"/></svg>On the other hand, the spec[2] does specify whitespace or commas between the viewbox numbers.
I rescind my 115 claim and reset it back to 116.
[1] https://github.com/svg/svgo/issues/12
[2] "a list of four numbers <min-x>, <min-y>, <width> and <height>, separated by whitespace and/or a comma"
<svg viewBox="-32 -32 64 64" style="background:#f60;fill:#fff"><path d="m0-5-8-12h-7L-3 1v16h6V1l12-18H8z"/></svg>Safari, Chrome, and Firefox are all perfectly happy with it but then rsvg-convert chokes on all of those changes. 114 is probably the best that can be done and still be "conforming" (for want of a better word.)