[rfc-i] draft-rfc-image-files-03

"Martin J. Dürst" duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Tue Apr 10 01:02:07 PDT 2012

On 2012/04/10 5:00, Paul E. Jones wrote:
>> Umm, I think that typing uppercase has become so second nature now that I
>> MUST continue doing it whatever the proposal suggests that I SHOULD do.
>> MAY I disagree?
> You *may* do that, but it *should* be recognized that this is just a
> carry-over from a legacy file format. ;-)
>> I like tagging though, that opens up the possibility of an automatically
>> generated table of normative requirements.
> Agreed.  The W3C does that to, but they still seem to put normative words in
> uppercase.  I don't quite understand that logic, but I think it was because
> they just wanted to follow RFC 2119 as-is.

There seem to be various opinions on the best way to show these. All 
UPPER CASE is maybe too strong, but not having any special style easily 
makes people miss the normative language. With HTML and CSS, there are 
all kind of options, making sure that people can have their cake and eat 
it too. There's not only bold or italic, but also small-caps (which may 
be a good compromise between people who want upper-case, and people who 
don't). For details, please see the CSS text-transform property 
(http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/text.html#propdef-text-transform) and the 
font-variant property

At W3C, over the past, practice has actually varied quite a bit. As an 
example, http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/ doesn't uppercase, nor does 
it use special markup. On the other hand, in
http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/ we went to great lengths, with UPPER CASE 
(though made slightly smaller with a stylesheet), numbering, a 
(non-normative!) appendix, and coloring (see e.g.
http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#C001) of the whole normative statement.

We actually used the term mustard (or should it be MUSTard?) for MUST 
and friends, and choose a mustard color for it :-). In the end, I expect 
that bikeshedding issues such as this one will take the longest to 
resolve. The main format questions will be quite easy to resolve in 
comparison :-).

Regards,    Martin.

> Perhaps we can get Scott to revise 2119 as RFC 7119.
> Paul
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list