hallam at gmail.com
Mon Apr 9 11:58:52 PDT 2012
Umm, I think that typing uppercase has become so second nature now
that I MUST continue doing it whatever the proposal suggests that I
SHOULD do. MAY I disagree?
I like tagging though, that opens up the possibility of an
automatically generated table of normative requirements.
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Paul E. Jones <paulej at packetizer.com> wrote:
>> > Not specific to this HTML example, but one thing we night want to
>> > consider is whether we want to change the normative words from all
>> > uppercase to italics (or bold) lowercase. This document shows
>> > uppercase, because that is the current agreed style driven by the use
>> > of ASCII. HTML opens up an opportunity to change that, if we want.
>> That's the wrong question.
>> The right question is: do we want to explicitly tag RFC 2119-relevant
>> words so that they can be rendered appropriately using whatever output
>> format/device that is used?
> Tagging is an option we have if we go with HTML. I could not propose
> tagging if we were to adopt some other document formats. Tagging is one
> thing. The use of uppercase or lowercase is another. I understand if we
> tag certain words, we can render them in a particular way. We can also type
> them a certain way, tagged or not. I'd prefer to not force use of
> uppercase, but tagging to allow the option when producing the output is
> So, I agree use of tags around normative words would be useful. I still
> want those entered by the human in lowercase in the source document.
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest