[rfc-i] draft-iab-html-rfc-02, "9.9 <bcp14>"
Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
rse at rfc-editor.org
Tue Mar 1 09:10:43 PST 2016
On 3/1/16 6:34 AM, HANSEN, TONY L wrote:
> On 3/1/16, 9:19 AM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>> On 2016-03-01 15:14, HANSEN, TONY L wrote:
>>> On 3/1/16, 2:59 AM, "rfc-interest on behalf of Julian Reschke" <rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org on behalf of julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>>>> "This element marks up words like MUST and SHOULD with an HTML <span>
>>>> element with the CSS class "bcp14"."
>>>> I believe a better choice would be to map to <em>, because this is a
>>>> case of adding emphasis (but still with a specific CSS class).
>>> That assumes that adding emphasis is the right thing to do. It might not be.
>> When you say "adding emphasis", do you refer to the markup (<span> vs
>> <em>), or to the display (which I do not propose to change at all)?
> I was referring to the markup, using <span class=bcp14> vs your proposed change to just use <em>.
The goal here is to allow people to emphasize requirement language if
they choose to do so in their own environment with their own CSS. When I
spoke with the IESG about this, the IESG's preference was to not add any
visual or other explicit emphasis on requirement language at this time.
More information about the rfc-interest