Plus, imagine for a second that you are not already an HTML whiz. Now in order to edit the HTML doc I sent you, you need to buy expensive, crappy WYSIWYG editing software like Frontpage or Dreamweaver.
Word can actually open and edit HTML documents; the problem is that the support is shitty, particularly because they don't treat it as a normal document. But that was my point: it's a shame HTML is a second class citizen in office land.
HTML and CSS would be an excellent solution, and in tune with the original idea (device-agnostic) of HTML. You don't know what software, or OS, or machine the receiver is viewing your document; you don't even know if they're using a screen.
I get a bit frustrated when websites do weird[1] things like force a display size (too narrow for most real monitors and too wide for most portable monitors, thus annoying both markets.) Maybe if HTML had taken off for print documents people would spend less time tinkering with the fonts and the 8px margins and more time on the content?
[1] You all know the stupid website decisions I mean.
It seems to me that we need something like PDF, but that isn't so hung up on the idea of formatting physical pages. If I'm reading on a phone, I want it to reflow.
That's not strictly true. You can embed inline object data in object tags (http://www.w3.org/TR/html40/struct/objects.html#h-13.3) using the data: URI scheme (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2397.html). Whether that is good enough, I don't know. The data needing to be physically inserted at each point of use certainly isn't great for space usage and performance.
But then, in the context of email, why not just use MIME?
(Not that that really alters the basic point, which was that HTML, by itself, isn't enough. The object tag might be a good enough solution, I don't know.)
Which is exactly what OP was complaining about. HTML documents need multiple files to work correctly. .DOC and .PDF provide this. There is no standard for HTML containters.
I believe that HTML is far more powerful than currently tapped.
Key term for this chapter is "than currently tapped". The problem is, .DOC and .PDF solve all the problems HTML documents have.
The take-home assignment is to make an HTML container that can be read and edited in software that everyone has, then convince the world (and hiring managers) that everyone should stop using Word even though it works perfectly fine. Extra credit if you make it as rich and feature filled as Word without making it more bloated than Word.
Yep, someone has to build a standard for HTML containers to contain documentary elements like Word/PDF have done so far.
PDF are supposedly better for printing, but that's only if you need documents to come out exactly the same everywhere; for most, a slight difference in text reflowing doesn't really make a difference, and CSS does the rest for the most part.
There's also the problem with embedding content, but nowadays you can just use data:// URIs and put everything in one file.