[rfc-i] Summary: use case for 2119 markup
nico at cryptonector.com
Fri Jun 20 14:07:43 PDT 2014
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Ted Lemon <mellon at fugue.com> wrote:
> Markup of 2119 keywords is different, because we're actually adding a new nuance of meaning.
Eh? Where? If the markup is only for RFC2119 words then there's no
nuance. It's just tooling input output format details. You might
argue that RFC2119 pre-dates the post-only-.txt world, therefore it
might need an update to indicate that slight variations in rendering
(and which slight variations) are permitted. But then, we already had
that problem to some degree -- it's not a new problem, but it might
make the existing problem bad enough to address with updates to
relevant RFCs (like 2119).
However, RFC2119 is underspecified as to rendering! It doesn't say
anywhere that these terms MUST (even SHOULD) be capitalized. The
_abstract_ merely notes that these are "usually capitalized".
Capitalizing these words turns out to be good and common practice, not
Maybe I'm just tired and slow today. What's the nuance that's being added?
More information about the rfc-interest