Re: [rfc-i] IETF RFC format <-> W3C pubrules

On May 9, 2012, at 4:12 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

> I note that as is often the case when the blatantly obvious is said we
> have disagreement by unresolved reference.
> 
> If you can't give a reason for a disagreement then you should probably
> think a bit before posting and wait until you can state what the
> disagreement is.

Many proposals other than "HTML as the canonical form" were made at the IETF meeting in Paris. The fact that you were not there does not mean that they were not proposed.

--Paul Hoffman