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

Dearlove, Christopher (UK) chris.dearlove at baesystems.com
Thu Jun 19 05:03:37 PDT 2014

Unless anything changes, the IESG will review the text version and insist the all uses of MUST are normative, and all uses of must are not. Then just need to ensure that the markup matches that.

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 Ted Lemon
Sent: 19 June 2014 02:46
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: RFC Interest; Paul Hoffman
Subject: Re: [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.

On Jun 18, 2014, at 9:06 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think that's the reason. I think the reason is precisely to 
> avoid any argument about which words are magic^H^H^H^H^Hnormative and 
> which are plain English.

But it won't do that, because whether or not you see the words rendered in a way that makes that distinction clear depends on whether they were correctly marked up and what presentation you are using.   E.g., if you use text, you will not see the markup.   Encoding normative meaning in the CSS seems like a really bad idea to me.

> I also think the proposal Heather included is the wrong way to do 
> this. MUST is really a separate entity and should be treated as such.
> Hence, we should predefine the relevant entities as &must; &should; 
> etc. That separates the issue of meaning from the issue of presentation.

But authors won't be required to submit this stuff, and so the RFC editors will have to scour the documents with some kind of pattern matching algorithm and hope that they identify all the normative uses of these words, and only the normative uses.
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