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.
I agree 100%. While it is nice to dream about charters being available through
rsync, making "official" HTML versions of all RFCs available, allow submission
of HTML versions of drafts, submission of drafts to the RFC Editor in XML
format, requiring XML for drafts, inclusion of bitmapped graphics in documents,
or any of the other things that have been proposed as additions to the original
modest proposal, these sorts of broader changes are far more difficult to
implement and will be far more difficult to reach consensus on.
Baby steps are in order here. Let's start small and see how it goes.
Ned