James Carlson wrote: > > I still think it should just be the one file that's affected by > redaction (not the whole case), but why are we scanning and (apparently) > attempting to publish the nroff sources anyway? I'd thought that they > were among the ignored files. > They were, but then I spent a week learning nroff and the ms format, submitted a .ms file, and saw my hard work turn evil and rebel against me. I'd prefer it if we allowed the nroff sources to be a way to submit (and contain the original of) the opinion. I know some of the arcane of the publishing now, so I know what /stuff/ to avoid in the documents. I hope.
I am in a constant state of battle selection, though, so if the best approach is to let go of the nroff and move to ???, then I'll probably concede and then push for some other markup format like HTML.
