The problem with nroff is that there is no RFC to reference that specifies how a document is formatted with nroff. There is wide variation in the macro packages people use to create a document with nroff. Even the RFC editor doesn't try hard to get the nroff source when editing; they make their own. I'm also trying pretty hard to keep the word "modest" I used in the title of this thread in mind. I'd like to try one simple thing to make I-Ds easier to read and use. Brian > -----Original Message----- > From: Zefram [mailto:zefram@fysh.org] > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 1:56 PM > To: Rosen, Brian > Cc: 'ietf@ietf.org' > Subject: Re: A modest proposal - allow the ID repository to hold xml > > > Rosen, Brian wrote: > >Allow the submission of an xml file meeting the requirements > of RFC2629 > >along with the text file (and optional ps file) for an > Internet Draft. > > The value in this would be that it provides everyone with the document > source, suitable for generating patches for the author. This > is useful, > but if it's going to be allowed with XML then we should also allow it > with nroff, which historically we haven't. I don't have particularly > strong feelings either way, but I do think these two cases should be > treated equivalently. > > -zefram >