What is the issue with the HTML Standard?
There are currently about 200 mentions of the URL scheme for legacy unencrypted HTTP in the HTML Standard. Many of these are examples of URLs, not intended to exclude the use of other schemes (most importantly HTTPS). However, it has come to my attention that some people think these examples mean the HTML Standard still requires use of unencrypted HTTP in some circumstances.
I'm sure that's not true. In order to make it obvious to even the most inexperienced readers of standardese that it's not true, I suggest that you should change every existing use of "http:" to "https:" throughout the standard, except for the few places where it is talking specifically about unencrypted HTTP (if there even are any, I haven't checked).
(I regret to say that the place where this came to my attention was a private forum, so I can't demonstrate that I am not making this up. But I'm not.)