[rfc-i] Is there a use case for 2119 keyword markup?
tbray at textuality.com
Thu Jun 19 13:16:12 PDT 2014
+1 to all of Nico’s points.
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Nico Williams <nico at cryptonector.com>
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 2:41 PM, John Levine <johnl at taugh.com> wrote:
> > I can promise that if you do that, the first time MUST appears in
> > unmarked upper case, we'll have a meta-argument about whether someone
> > forgot to add the markup.
> It's like so many nits: we call them out as such and that's the end of
> it. And frankly, we could stop calling out the nits -- that's what we
> have an RFC-Editor for.
> Anyways, that the nitpickers among us might have more occasions to
> pick nits is not much of an argument against semantic markup.
> Stronger arguments have been made _for_ semantic markup.
> FWIW, I'm sold on semantic markup. I especially like the <must/> (and
> so on) approach: because it's proper markup that will survive passes
> through XML processors (unlike entities), and because its short
> enough. I do also like &must;, but only if it maps to something like
> I would also like an attribute or tag for indicating that some text is
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
- Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rfc-interest