Julian Reschke wrote: > IMHO it would be a good idea in the sense of "own dogfood" not to > serve XHTML content with media type text/html. Matter of taste, from my POV XHTML 1.0 transitional is the best way to create backwards compatible (HTML 3.2) content "visible with any browser". Or as the ion-ion-format draft puts it: "no fancy features". If my old browser sees some real XML it simply starts my text editor... ;-) >> The HTML output of xml2rfc is rather ugly with my browser, and its >> nice unpaginated output doesn't offer meta-data and I18N, tough :-( > I18N? Non-ASCII, the xml2rfc "txt" or "unpg" output is ASCII. The HTML of rfcmarkup is very nice, but at that point all meta-data and non-ASCII is already lost. Maybe xml2rfc should get a new XHTML output option, not your "dogfod" of course, normal XHTML 1.0 transitional text/html. Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf