[rfc-i] Summary: use case for 2119 markup
lear at cisco.com
Sun Jun 22 03:39:49 PDT 2014
On 6/20/14, 10:37 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> Markup of 2119 keywords is different, because we're actually adding a
> new nuance of meaning.
I actually wonder whether it is the other way around. By adding the
mark up, the authors have an opportunity to make their meaning crystal
clear. It doesn't mean they will, mind you. I'm currently reading a
draft that has simply baffling examples of inconsistency. The nice
thing about the markup would be that one could easily spot the
inconsistency and ask why must in one place and MUST in another?
But in the department of "Does this matter so much?" does anyone have an
example of where there was an interoperability problem because of "must"
was used instead of "MUST"? I ask not only to keep us from flaming out
on this, but I do agree with Nico that 2119 does a pretty darn good job
as it is.
More information about the rfc-interest