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

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Tue Apr 10 17:09:14 PDT 2012

On 4/10/2012 3:40 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote:
> Julian, et al,
>>> Not specific to this HTML example, but one thing we night want to
>>> consider is whether we want to change the normative words from all
>>> uppercase to italics (or bold) lowercase.  This document shows
>>> uppercase, because that is the current agreed style driven by the use
>>> of ASCII.  HTML opens up an opportunity to change that, if we want.
>> I'm currently using all uppercase with a different font because that way,
>> copying and pasting to plain text will do the right thing.
> Does this suggest a different meaning:
>    "The client MUST select..."
>    "The client must select..."
> I can appreciate emphasizing words (for a quick scan through a document),
> though I wonder if use of certain tags could address that need.  For
> example, I can load an HTML document in Word that has normative words (in
> whatever case) tagged with class="rfc2119" and ask Word to highlight all of
> them.
> So, is there really a need with modern browsers, editors, etc. to even
> provide emphasis?  I can appreciate how it would be useful for a quick
> eye-scan over a document, but I would not think it would generally be useful
> when carefully reading a spec... unless "must" and "MUST" really means
> something different.

FWIW, I've often included language to ensure that MUST is interpreted 
with 2119 context and "must" is not, just to avoid any accidental use of 
2119 words that was not intended with 2119 meaning.

    The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
    document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

    In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation
    only when in ALL CAPS.  Lowercase uses of these words are not to be
    interpreted as carrying RFC 2119 significance.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list