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

Dearlove, Christopher (UK) chris.dearlove at baesystems.com
Thu Jun 19 03:47:27 PDT 2014

Of course RFC 2119 doesn't discuss mixing 2119 and non-2119 usage of these words in a document, and distinguishing between them with upper and lower case - it doesn't even make upper case mandatory. This is all post-2119 custom and practice. (Effectively mandated by the IESG.)

I can see the point of markup. But <span class='rfc2119'>MUST</span> is a horrible thing to have to write instead of MUST. Someone suggested &must; My (non-XML expert) obvious suggestion is <must/> - which would appear in text as MUST. I guess MUST NOT would have to be <must-not/>.

Of course authors could continue to write MUST and have it automatically converted to whatever form wanted at RFC Editor stage.

Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124
chris.dearlove at baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687

-----Original Message-----
From: rfc-interest [mailto:rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org] On Behalf Of Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
Sent: 18 June 2014 21:51
To: rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
Subject: [rfc-i] Is there a use case for 2119 keyword markup?

----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an external partner or from the internet.
Consider carefully whether you should click on any links, open any attachments or reply.
Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.

Hello rfc-interest,

A question came up recently regarding whether there were any serious use cases around semantically marking up RFC 2119 keywords (when used _as_
keywords) in the new format. 

In the HTML draft, it says:
3.3.1.  Requirement Keywords

   The RFC2119 keywords in the document will be set off with special
   markup.  They are surrounded with a <span> element containing the CSS
   class rfc2119.  For example:

   They <span class='rfc2119'>MUST</span> be surrounded

For this to happen, we need to add something to the XML vocabulary as well.  Does anyone have a use case where this kind of markup would be useful, or is it just a "nice to have, because we can, but not if it increases the overall cost of creating RFCs"?

Note: Whether or not we decide to add markup around the keywords, the current guidance around capitalization, etc, as described in RFC 2119 will still apply.

Feedback welcome,
Heather Flanagan, RSE

rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org

This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list