Format / typo check YYYY/README.md files

It should be pointed out that there are a few inconsistencies as noted
below.

In some years the title of entries that were explicitly listed were
linked to but as the README.md files no longer have the title it was not
as easy to locate the title (I could go back in archive/historic and I
did in some cases but I was trying to hurry this up to close #3).

It's most likely that some have backticks surrounding certain words like
gcc or something else but not in all files. An example that might be
there is '#define'.

Some wording is different. Usually this is due to the original wording
which I did not think was good to change. There might be other cases
that were missed as well. One thing is that comes to mind is that in
some README.md files it refers to the Makefile to check for build
instructions, in others it refers to the index.html file and in some it
refers to both. But the index.html has how to build so they should
probably all say index.html and not refer to the Makefile. This was also
done in a rush.

There might be other inconsistencies or things that might want to be
fixed but whether it's worth it given is unclear at this time. It can be
argued that the reference to the Makefiles for build instructions is a
historical comment to keep there as an example of why not to change it.

There were other things I noticed that I could not address or did not
feel were necessary but with this commit an important task is can likely
be considered done unless it is decided that some of these should be
fixed or if looking at the rendered output there is a problem.

2020/README.md

@@ -13,8 +13,9 @@ The primary site can be found at [www.ioccc.org](https://www.ioccc.org).
 Use `make` to compile entries.  It is possible that on non-Unix / non-Linux
 systems the Makefile needs to be changed.  See the Makefile for details.
 
-Read over the Makefile for compile/build issues.  Your system may require
-certain changes (add or remove a library, add or remove a #define).
+Read over the Makefile and index.html files for compile/build issues.  Your
+system may require certain changes (add or remove a library, add or remove a
+`#define`).
 
 Some C compilers are not quite as good as they should be.  If yours is
 lacking, you may need to compile using clang or gcc instead of your local
@@ -23,37 +24,42 @@ compiler.
 
 ## Remarks on some of the winning entries
 
-This year's Best of Show (carlini) is such a novel way of obfuscation that it would be
-worth of a special mention in the (future) Best of IOCCC list!
+This year's [Best of Show (carlini)](carlini/index.html) is such a novel way of
+obfuscation that it would be worth of a special mention in the (future) Best of
+IOCCC list!
 
 For some reason, this year's set of winning entries contains three nostalgic games,
-Asteroids (tsoj), Minesweeper (endoh1), and Snake (ferguson1).
+[Asteroids (tsoj)](tsoj/index.html), [Minesweeper (endoh1)](endoh1/index.html),
+and [Snake (ferguson1)](ferguson1/index.html).
 
-An entry (kurdyukov1) pays homage to a previous entry [2015/hou](2015/hou/index.htm0).
+An entry ([kurdyukov1](kurdyukov1/index.html)) pays homage to previous entry
+[2015/hou](2015/hou/index.htm0).
 
 ...We'll stop spouting spoilers now. Have fun exploring all the entries!
 
 
 ## Remarks on some of submissions that did not win
 
-As a rule, we try to compile the entries on a variety of platforms.
-Quite a few entries this year could not be built or executed on some of them due to reliance on
-library internals or the system runtime.
+As a rule, we try to compile the entries on a variety of platforms.  Quite a few
+entries this year could not be built or executed on some of them due to reliance
+on library internals or the system runtime.
 
-A few entries were violating the "2053 significant bytes" rule. If an entry could not be brought to
-compliance within a few seconds of looking at the source, it was disqualified.
+A few entries were violating the "2053 significant bytes" rule. If an entry
+could not be brought to compliance within a few seconds of looking at the
+source, it was disqualified.
 
 One entry tried to get around the size limit by putting the code into
-Makefile variables and using -D. This is already called out as discouraged
+Makefile variables and using `-D`. This is already called out as discouraged
 technique in the guidelines, but it is worth a reminder.
 
-Several promising entries attempted to make use of the `syscall` function using literal syscall numbers.
-This is utterly non-portable.
+Several promising entries attempted to make use of the `syscall` function using
+literal syscall numbers.  This is utterly non-portable.
 
-A note to the authors: when submitting multiple entries, don't let us easily correlate them by
-coding style or documentation content, and definitely don't submit nearly identical versions
-of your program separately. As we try to judge the entries anonymously, the similarities will cause such
-entries to compete against one another, making each less likely to win.
+A note to the authors: when submitting multiple entries, don't let us easily
+correlate them by coding style or documentation content, and definitely don't
+submit nearly identical versions of your program separately. As we try to judge
+the entries anonymously, the similarities will cause such entries to compete
+against one another, making each less likely to win.
 
 We hope the authors of non-winning entries will refine their entries and
 perhaps re-submit them for the next IOCCC.
@@ -61,6 +67,8 @@ perhaps re-submit them for the next IOCCC.
 
 ## Final Comments
 
+One more thing that feels dated is digraphs and trigraphs.
+
 **IMPORTANT NOTE**: See [contact.html](../contact.html) for up to date contact details
 as well as details on how to provide fixes to any of the entries.
 See also [the IOCCC FAQ](../faq.html) for addition information on the IOCCC.