[rfc-i] Is there a use case for 2119 keyword markup?

Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) jhildebr at cisco.com
Mon Jun 23 12:59:29 PDT 2014


On 6/22/14, 10:45 AM, "John Levine" <johnl at taugh.com> wrote:

>>I'm having trouble getting a lot of psychological distance among
>>MUST and  &must; and <must/>.
>
>On the other hand, I'm having naughty thoughts about
><must>SHOULD NOT</must> and <may>MIGHT</may>.

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE root [
  <!ENTITY must-not "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>">
]>
<root>We &must-not; select that markup style then.</root>


>Doing real semantic markup on RFCs would be an interesting experiment
>but I agree it's vastly beyond the scope of anything we'd add to the
>editorial process in the near term.

There's a bunch of semantic in the XML format already.

-- 
Joe Hildebrand





More information about the rfc-interest mailing list