[rfc-i] Is there a use case for 2119 keyword markup?

Eliot Lear lear at cisco.com
Wed Jun 18 21:54:49 PDT 2014


Forgive the intrusion from someone who hasn't been engaged day to day on
this activity.

On 6/19/14, 3:17 AM, Tim Bray wrote:
> My instinct is screaming at me that the 2119 words deserve special
> distinguished markup.  The #1 most important semantics of RFCs is the
> normative requirements, what you MUST do to interoperate.  If you’re
> going to apply semantic markup to *anything* it seems like this ought
> to be the top of the list.  No, I don’t have a well-thought-through
> list of things you would do with such markup if you had it; but
> forcing authors to make explicit decisions about when they’re 2119’ing
> and when not feels like a benefit in and of itself.

Backing up, isn't the high level question how best should normative 2119
keywords  be called out to the reader who hasn't been doing this for
half a lifetime?  Will there be other uses of bold or italics or
underline as we go forward?  How will the reader distinguish 2119
keywords from other words?  If we're not going to embolden, italicize or
underline 2119 keywords, are we going to allow that sort of markup for
other words?



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20140619/e512328d/attachment.html>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list