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 mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf