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.
Brian
-----Original Message-----
From: Zefram [mailto:zefram(_at_)fysh(_dot_)org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 1:56 PM
To: Rosen, Brian
Cc: 'ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org'
Subject: Re: A modest proposal - allow the ID repository to hold xml
Rosen, Brian wrote:
Allow the submission of an xml file meeting the requirements
of RFC2629
along with the text file (and optional ps file) for an
Internet Draft.
The value in this would be that it provides everyone with the document
source, suitable for generating patches for the author. This
is useful,
but if it's going to be allowed with XML then we should also allow it
with nroff, which historically we haven't. I don't have particularly
strong feelings either way, but I do think these two cases should be
treated equivalently.
-zefram