> 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. I agree 100%. While it is nice to dream about charters being available through rsync, making "official" HTML versions of all RFCs available, allow submission of HTML versions of drafts, submission of drafts to the RFC Editor in XML format, requiring XML for drafts, inclusion of bitmapped graphics in documents, or any of the other things that have been proposed as additions to the original modest proposal, these sorts of broader changes are far more difficult to implement and will be far more difficult to reach consensus on. Baby steps are in order here. Let's start small and see how it goes. Ned