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

Ted Lemon mellon at fugue.com
Wed Jun 18 18:46:00 PDT 2014


On Jun 18, 2014, at 9:06 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think that's the reason. I think the reason is precisely to
> avoid any argument about which words are magic^H^H^H^H^Hnormative
> and which are plain English.

But it won't do that, because whether or not you see the words rendered in a way that makes that distinction clear depends on whether they were correctly marked up and what presentation you are using.   E.g., if you use text, you will not see the markup.   Encoding normative meaning in the CSS seems like a really bad idea to me.

> I also think the proposal Heather included is the wrong way to do
> this. MUST is really a separate entity and should be treated as such.
> Hence, we should predefine the relevant entities as &must; &should;
> etc. That separates the issue of meaning from the issue of presentation.

But authors won't be required to submit this stuff, and so the RFC editors will have to scour the documents with some kind of pattern matching algorithm and hope that they identify all the normative uses of these words, and only the normative uses.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list