[rfc-i] Summary: use case for 2119 markup

Ted Lemon mellon at fugue.com
Fri Jun 20 13:37:48 PDT 2014


On Jun 20, 2014, at 4:24 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
> Wait a minute.  I thought we were _already_ accepting a process
> change, because the "canonical" version of the file is no longer to be
> the text file, but instead some other format.

We are accepting this process change because it's something relevant to the publication stream, and it doesn't change the meaning of the document.   That is, we are saying that the output of the editorial process means the same thing as the input, and therefore there is no problem.

Markup of 2119 keywords is different, because we're actually adding a new nuance of meaning.



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list