julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue Apr 10 01:45:16 PDT 2012
On 2012-04-10 10:02, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> On 2012/04/10 5:00, Paul E. Jones wrote:
>>> 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?
>> You *may* do that, but it *should* be recognized that this is just a
>> carry-over from a legacy file format. ;-)
>>> I like tagging though, that opens up the possibility of an automatically
>>> generated table of normative requirements.
>> Agreed. The W3C does that to, but they still seem to put normative
>> words in
>> uppercase. I don't quite understand that logic, but I think it was
>> they just wanted to follow RFC 2119 as-is.
> There seem to be various opinions on the best way to show these. All
> UPPER CASE is maybe too strong, but not having any special style easily
> makes people miss the normative language. With HTML and CSS, there are
> all kind of options, making sure that people can have their cake and eat
> it too. There's not only bold or italic, but also small-caps (which may
> be a good compromise between people who want upper-case, and people who
> don't). For details, please see the CSS text-transform property
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/text.html#propdef-text-transform) and the
> font-variant property
Or look at the example I just asked for feedback on :-)
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest