Keith Moore wrote: > 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 data URIs are available in 3 out of 4 major browsers, with IE8 adding them as well. > format. But data: URLs are not as widely supported as we'd like. Nor > is MHTML. Having multiple files per document is less attractive. That's true, but the other proposal that's on the table also requires multiple files. > 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 So do I :-) > 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. That's true, but I would expect *less* discussions as compared to just using PDF (for everything). BR, Julian _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf