>> Clarifying: the reason why I'm researching is that apparently some >> people think it would be good to have a replacement for xml2rfc.tcl that >> *emits* nroff (only - as opposed to plain text/nroff/html as the TCL >> code does today). > > Though I happen to like nroff (I also like anchovies) please don't count > me among those who think the replacement for sml2rfc.tcl should have > nroff format as its *only* output format. Good luck with your research! What Randy says. Indeed, I understand why the RFC-Ed folks might want to have nroff versions of things for their use (manipulation/editing, archival, whatever). Having nroff output as an *option* is surely important. But the rest of us will always need the txt, html, pdf, and whatever. Barry _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf