Julian Reschke wrote: > Paul Hoffman wrote: >> ... >> It sure it. It just turns out to be a terrible format for extracting >> text as anything other than lines, and even then doesn't work >> reliably with commonly-used tools >> ... > > It's also a terrible format for reading documentation in a Web Browser. > I believe the IETF and the W3C came up with a better format for that a > few years ago... Not clear. It might be that a small and well-chosen subset of [X]HTML, with strict checking to limit the kinds of tags and parameters used, and data: URLs for all images referenced from the main document, would be a decent RFC format. But data: URLs are not as widely supported as we'd like. Nor is MHTML. Having multiple files per document is less attractive. I also suspect that using HTML for RFCs would invite a lot of heated discussion on just what that HTML should look like. e.g. I personally have an intense dislike for the HTML that xml2rfc produces, but I don't have to care much as long as the plain text versions of those RFCs are still authoritative. I'm not saying [X]HTML RFCs are an inherently bad idea, just that they're not as simple to get right as it might seem. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf