This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Typography Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TypographyWikipedia:WikiProject TypographyTemplate:WikiProject TypographyTypography
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Tag change

I removed the {{confusing}} tag, since it looks like it applied to a section of the article that was blatant WP:PROMOTION and has since been removed. I also added a {{refimprove}} because there's all of one cite here, and I'm sure there's more information on the topic someplace. -lee (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory introduction

If this article is not about the abandoned W3C format, as the disambiguating note says, then the definition in this article should not be a verbatim quote from the W3C’s documentation of said abandoned format!! — tooki (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not necessarily contradictory. The description of a compound document is taken from the standard, but the standard defines only one specific instance. Peter Flass (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So... help me understand how that is not exactly what I am talking about. The definition needed here, in the article about the generic concept, should not be the one from a document describing the “one specific instance”. — tooki (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]