Re: Towards consensus on document format

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Masataka Ohta <mohta at necom830 dot hpcl dot titech dot ac dot jp> wrote:

HTML is already too complex and unstable that there is no hope that

UNSTABLE?

Is it still version 1.0?

The current version is 4.01, and it has been stable since 1999. The next version, 5, is approaching Last Call, and is unlikely to break anything that is actually in use.

So your definition of "stable" is that there are no post-1.0 versions? Even compatible ones? Just asking...

Tools does not support restricted profile very well, as was demonstrated by a circled 'R' character in a claimed-to-be-pure-ASCII PDF.

So Microsoft Word inserted a registered-trademark symbol into an *internal properties field* of a PDF file whose *contents* were claimed to be pure ASCII, and now it is claimed that this demonstrates not only that the contents of a PDF file cannot be plain ASCII, but also that HTML is too unstable for a reduced-feature profile to be successful?

For an Engineering Task Force, this group sure does surprise me sometimes with its logical reasoning.

--
Doug Ewell  |  Thornton, Colorado, USA  |  http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14  |  ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s ­

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]