[rfc-i] Is there a use case for 2119 keyword markup?
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
Size: 481 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the rfc-interest