[rfc-i] Is there a use case for 2119 keyword markup?

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Wed Jun 18 22:01:17 PDT 2014


That's *exactly* the way to do it IMNSHO.

Except that you need to add

<!ENTITY NOT-RECOMMENDED "<bcp14 xmlns='http://purl.org/net/xml2rfc/ext'>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>">

which is also defined in BCP 14 but mistakenly omitted from the
boilerplate (http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=499).

Regards
   Brian

On 19/06/2014 16:05, Tony Hansen wrote:
> On 6/18/14, 4:50 PM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
>> Hello rfc-interest,
>>
>> A question came up recently regarding whether there were any serious use
>> cases around semantically marking up RFC 2119 keywords (when used _as_
>> keywords) in the new format.
>>
>> In the HTML draft, it says:
>> 3.3.1.  Requirement Keywords
>>
>>     The RFC2119 keywords in the document will be set off with special
>>     markup.  They are surrounded with a <span> element containing the CSS
>>     class rfc2119.  For example:
>>
>>     They <span class='rfc2119'>MUST</span> be surrounded
>>
>> For this to happen, we need to add something to the XML vocabulary as
>> well.  Does anyone have a use case where this kind of markup would be
>> useful, or is it just a "nice to have, because we can, but not if it
>> increases the overall cost of creating RFCs"?
> 
> I'll give an example of where markup of 2119 keywords has been used
> successfully:
> 
> The HTTPbis documents that were recently published were written in a
> slight variant of the V2 xml2rfc language. If you take a look at
> http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-26.xml
> you'll find a series of  entity definitions at the top:
> 
>   <!ENTITY MAY "<bcp14
> xmlns='http://purl.org/net/xml2rfc/ext'>MAY</bcp14>">
>   <!ENTITY MUST "<bcp14
> xmlns='http://purl.org/net/xml2rfc/ext'>MUST</bcp14>">
>   <!ENTITY MUST-NOT "<bcp14 xmlns='http://purl.org/net/xml2rfc/ext'>MUST
> NOT</bcp14>">
>   <!ENTITY OPTIONAL "<bcp14
> xmlns='http://purl.org/net/xml2rfc/ext'>OPTIONAL</bcp14>">
>   <!ENTITY RECOMMENDED "<bcp14
> xmlns='http://purl.org/net/xml2rfc/ext'>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>">
>   <!ENTITY REQUIRED "<bcp14
> xmlns='http://purl.org/net/xml2rfc/ext'>REQUIRED</bcp14>">
>   <!ENTITY SHALL "<bcp14
> xmlns='http://purl.org/net/xml2rfc/ext'>SHALL</bcp14>">
>   <!ENTITY SHALL-NOT "<bcp14
> xmlns='http://purl.org/net/xml2rfc/ext'>SHALL NOT</bcp14>">
>   <!ENTITY SHOULD "<bcp14
> xmlns='http://purl.org/net/xml2rfc/ext'>SHOULD</bcp14>">
>   <!ENTITY SHOULD-NOT "<bcp14
> xmlns='http://purl.org/net/xml2rfc/ext'>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>">
> 
> Then within the document, the entities &MAY;, &MUST;, etc. are used
> wherever the 2119 keywords should be used.
> 
> If you look at the author's HTML version of that spec,
> http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-26.html,
> you'll see that the <bcp14/> extension has rendered the keywords in
> SMALL CAPS, which is slightly different than the surrounding text, just
> enough so it's obvious that these are the keywords and yet not so much
> different.
> 
> One of the items that is being discussed for the HTML rendering of RFCs
> is the ability to replace the CSS with your own CSS. Having the keywords
> marked up semantically allows the keywords to be displayed in various
> different ways, depending on which CSS has been used. This would allow
> us to have tools that help highlight where the 2119-keyed requirements
> are located, and otherwise get out of the way. But it DOES require
> having the semantic information available within the XML.
> 
>     Tony Hansen
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list