diff --git a/text/0000-local-components.md b/text/0000-local-components.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b8c2c13
--- /dev/null
+++ b/text/0000-local-components.md
@@ -0,0 +1,97 @@
+- Start Date: 2020-12-13
+- RFC PR: ([#44](https://github.com/sveltejs/rfcs/pull/44))
+- Svelte Issue: (leave this empty)
+
+# Local Components
+
+## Summary
+
+Allow `.svelte` files to define multiple Components
+
+## Motivation
+
+Each Component requires creating a brand new `.svelte` file, but sometimes a Component necessitates its own sub-Components, this happens in the following occasions :
+1. a node tree pattern is repeated several times 
+2. a node tree needs to be wrapped or not depending on a condition
+3. a node uses completely different attributes/directives depending on a condition
+4. a variable from a `let:` slot prop, an `#await` resolved promise or a `#each` value is transformed then used more than once
+5. an `#each` block needs its own script for `$`subscriptions or lifecycle
+6. a Component is too large and requires to be broken down for readability sake
+
+Having to spread tiny parts of a Component across several files is unfortunate as it leads to duplicate component names, cluttered folders and quite the refactoring hazard
+
+To solve those, @Rich-Harris has put forth a collection of RFCS: 
+* #32 to allow nesting styles in node trees
+* #33 to allow declaring `const`s in node trees
+* #34 to allow declaring reusable node trees
+
+Now all of those combined barely make up for a pseudocomponent, yet they introduce and bend several concepts in the framework, and issue 5) would still require an external component
+
+**_Each of those issues can and is currently solved by making a new Component_**, we just don't like spreading them across several files
+
+## Detailed design
+
+A Svelte Component is composed of a script block, a style block and a node tree
+
+A `.svelte` file is composed of a script context module and a Svelte Component that becomes the default export
+
+```xml
+
+<script context="module"/>
+
+<script/>
+<style/>
+<content/>
+
+```
+
+The proposed design is simple: Allow `.svelte` files to define named Svelte Components in series using a top-level Comment block. 
+
+```xml
+<script context="module">
+
+<script/>
+<style/>
+<content/>
+
+<!-- Foo -->
+<script/>
+<style/>
+<content/>
+
+<!-- Bar -->
+<script/>
+<style/>
+<content/>
+```
+Everything above the first named Component (if any) stays the default export.
+
+The `Foo` variable works exactly as if that file imported `import Foo from "./Foo.svelte"`, `Foo` cannot access anything from the default Component,  it's all on its own with its own style, script and content.
+
+The only difference from a conventional import is that `Foo` has access to the script module & can instantiate other named Components present in the file if any.
+
+There's many benefits to this approach :
+ * Incredibly simple and straightforward
+ * Doesn't add indentation
+ * Compatible with Typescript
+ * Easy to implement & maintain
+ * Doesn't introduce new concepts
+ * Doesn't fragment Component features
+
+## How we teach this
+
+This RFC does not introduce any kind of directive, special element or new concept. 
+
+If your component needs to be split into parts, just write it underneath!
+
+## Drawbacks
+
+Someone out there could be using that Component declaration synthax for something else, so it is technically breaking.
+
+## Unresolved questions
+
+* Is there something better than a Comment Node ? 
+* Should the comment node include a specific word to better describe its intent ? `<!-- declare Foo -->` 
+* Should local components be directly exportable ? `<!-- export Foo [as Bar] -->`
+  * If so, should they be named exports or static properties of the default Component ? `Component.Foo`
+* Given that each component scopes its style, should there be a `<style context="module">` shared across all components in the same file ?