On Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 3:46 PM John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org> wrote:
It was allowed because SRFI 33 was and is withdrawn, and nobody was going to put effort into a withdrawn SRFI.  SRFI 142 (also withdrawn) and SRFI 151 (current) are its successors.  At that time it was apparently normal to allow early drafts of a SRFI to be in plain text or any sort of markup, including org-mode; only the final draft absolutely had to be HTML.

By my reading, that was never allowed. But that's water under the bridge.  If we can fix them, that would be great.