IMHO html is a substantial improvement on .ps in these respects.
>If there were universal enough standard for HTML on the standards
>track as a (of necessity) ASCII RFC, you might be able to get the RFC
>editor to agree to allow HTML at the same level as PostScript, as a
IMHO the RFC seems pretty clear that this is not decision that within the
descretion of the RFC editor. The document is either an RFC or it is not.
Hopefully, Dr. Postel will address this issue.
>non-authoritative alternate view. To get HTML allowed as the
>authoritative version of standards track RFC would be a lot more
>difficult. To be sure no one was missing anyting important, the HTML
>would probably have to be severly restricted to features you were sure
>that essentially all browsers would have. For example, it might be
>necessary to ban images, sounds, etc. because many people have text
>only browsers.
I don't believe that a ban would be prudent. How about the following
language to accomodate the "graphically challenged?" "To ensure that the
RFC is widely accessible, in-line objects (images, sounds, etc) shall have
ALT attributes that provide the meaning implicit in the object."
>And you would probably still have to provide a
>straight text version.
Why is this necessary, as html is already "text?"
>In any case, RFC editing policy is certainly not going to be set
>by th html-wg.
True, no more than for any other rfc (including html itself). However, if
the html wg proposes a solution to a real problem, the IETF process can
work. No proposal, no progress.
Walter Houser 202-786-9572
houser@cpcug.org 301-427-3792
Have the Courage to Be Imperfect - R. Driekurs