Julian Reschke wrote: >> 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). For the now dead IONs the restriction was roughly "no nonsense". I guess we could hash out a flat DTD for an IETF subset of XHTML 1.0 transitional working with old HTML 3.2 browsers, while still allowing the CSS for decorations. No data URIs of course. If the goal is one file we could try to fix the weird ooXML "pack" non-URI scheme (a persistently parked draft, they know that I'd request HISTOTRIC one second after it expires, therefore they keep it alive, a congenial subversion :-) Frank -- <http://tinyurl.com/5q82dg> _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf