[rfc-i] Comments on draft-hoffman-xml2rfc-06

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Thu May 1 09:04:49 PDT 2014


On May 1, 2014, at 8:09 AM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> On 4/30/14 11:46 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> 
>>> s2.21, <em>:  Would it be better to call this <emph> to match with
>>> typical Tex usage (or is there some other prior art)?
>> 
>> It would probably be better to match what HTML users expect. I believe there are more of them than TeX users.
>> 
>>> Also does it
>>> *have* to be italic and therefore the same as <i>?  Shouldn't this be
>>> 'typically italic' but left to the formatter to do it as it wants?
>>> Accordingly should <i> be allowed content in <em(ph)> (and vice versa)?
>> 
>> Yes; no; no. You are theoretically correct on the first one, but if it is not predictable, we will waste *huge* amounts of writers time arguing about it. Better to just be consistent.
>> 
>> [[ Same answers for <strong>/<b> ]]
> 
> If <em> and <strong> are simply synonyms for <i> and <b>, then why would I want to prefer <em> and <strong>?

Because there are many people who strongly believe that people should only be using syntactic entities, not the ones that describe the formatting. Others strongly believe the other way. I picked one so that the canonical published RFCs would be consistent. As a personal exercise, I chose the one opposite from my strongly held belief.

--Paul Hoffman


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list