David brought up a good counterexample: italics. I like the idea of capturing the text electronically beyond the scans themselves in an exact UTF-8 edition. But thinking it further, there are things the typesetter might have done that are not representable in UTF-8, italics being one example. I thought further about the proofing rounds at DP. The original proposal was to ask that proofers not clothe eol hyphens and dashes. I believe there would be other exceptions, such as start of chapter capitalization that proofers are supposed to downcase. I'm not sure DP management or users will embrace these changes, especially when the proofer's work is not leading directly to a final product but only to a RTT. Marcello's position has been that PG produces new editions. He eschews facsimile editions that DP historically has tried to produce, matching the original as closely as possible, which is what the RTT is. Instead, he proposes RST. It's the only input format that is completely usable by epubmaker. RST cannot match the scan. It feels like Jon's RTT and Marcello's RST are both trying to be PG's master format. Finally, Bowerbird has warned against proceeding and I respect his historical perspective. Can we avoid the mistakes of the past attempts? -- Roger Frank