[rfc-i] Comments on draft-hoffman-xml2rfc-06
nico at cryptonector.com
Thu May 1 10:08:38 PDT 2014
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org> wrote:
> 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:
>>> [[ 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.
I take the first view right up until there is a need to quote and keep
italics/bold/underline as in the original.
More information about the rfc-interest