Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> I liked the I-D better, the xml2rfc HTML output is hard to read. > Really? I find the links in the HTML version invaluable. Me too, but I prefer the "rfcmarkup" HTML version of the I-D, for starters it uses a monospaced font, it doesn't spice the output with character references not supported by my stoneage mozilla-3, and where it uses comma-separated lists of RFCs or I-Ds they are visually clearly separated: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-procdoc-roadmap Maybe you could get a similar effect if you pipe the "unpaginated" xml2rfc output into "rfcmarkup". This procedure would kill UTF-8 and meta data, however. Something is missing, probably xml2rfc needs an additional output style XHTML resulting in an emulation of rfcmarkup style, but using UTF-8, and preserving any meta data. Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf