> >It seems like the more efficient approach would be to essentially have two > >stages, where the authors first sign off on the result of copy-editing, and > >then on whatever cosmetic changes are needed after the final conversion. > > > That assumes that the xml->nroff conversion is always error-free. I > think that that's an overassumption. I've seen several cases where "cosmetic changes" introduced technical errors in a document. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf