On Dec 3, 2019, at 17:27, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Helpful but, if we are concerned about what the final output > looks like, wouldn't it be easier to have authors just convert > HT to the widths they prefer and to modify the nits checker to > notice their presence? And for the RFC Editor to be sure that > none of them make it into final output? Yes. It seems to me Julian’s code was simply providing the error message in the form of a red U+2409 «␉», so you can locate the HT if you don’t have an appropriate editor program. Grüße, Carsten
