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

Michael Richardson mcr+ietf at sandelman.ca
Thu Jun 19 06:30:06 PDT 2014


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.

    > 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.

I could buy that, but it could be &MUST; and &SHOULD; right?

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF at sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 481 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20140619/fe3f92ee/attachment.sig>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list