Julian Reschke wrote: > > data URIs are available in 3 out of 4 major browsers, with IE8 adding > them as well. I thought IE8 had some fairly annoying limitations on their use? >> 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. sure, but I'm not taking that proposal seriously :) >> 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). IMHO, the only thing PDF has going for it is that (sadly) it's easier to print PDF correctly on most computers than it is to print plain text. Pretty much everything else about PDF, IMHO, makes it a poor choice for most new RFCs. (though it's probably slightly better than PostScript such as was used in the past). Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf