> > I like the idea. But it has to be compatible with software > > that people already have. How many browsers that people > > actually use these days support MHTML? > > It is supported in IE and Firefox and has been for about five years or so.
That might not be quite good enough, but it's close enough to warrant further investigation. > The format is currently defined by a Microsoft note but this can easily be > made into an RFC, it is a widely supported standard extension of MIME. What was wrong with RFC 2557? How can we assume that this is a stable format given that MS apparently felt they could change it on a whim? > Creating one of these archives is easy, just view the HTML page and click > 'save as archive'. My copy of firefox doesn't seem to have that feature. > Another point to consider, the only sustained objection being made to this > proposal is that future generations may be unable to read the documents. > > This particular objection cannot be made credibly with respect to Internet > Drafts which expire in 6 months in any case. Nor do I think it is reasonable > to require support for people using obsolete software in this case. If > someone can't install the latest version of Firefox their ability to > contribute to a WG is going to be negligible in any case. Unfortunately, many IETF participants are expected by their employers to use broken software. As someone who has actually tried producing I-Ds in alternate formats, I'm not sure that I agree that there's much benefit to having only I-Ds use the new format. People who review the document need to be able to see something close to the version that will actually be published. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
