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

Tim Bray tbray at textuality.com
Thu Jun 19 22:21:01 PDT 2014

The idea of marking up the normative text around the 2119 words is
seductive but I think a mistake.  There’s endless room for argument as to
exactly how far to mark up, but RFCs seem to work OK when we leave that up
to the judgment of the reader.  So I’d say just mark up the magic words and
leave it at that.

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 9:17 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:

> On 6/19/2014 1:31 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >> > Marking the whole chunk of text that says something normative, on the
> >> > other hand, could tell us something interesting.
> > Yes. Like <code>
> The idea is entirely reasonable.
> However this would also represent a substantial cultural change in the
> writing of specifications.
> Specifications are not currently written with that kind of clarity and
> precision about what characters fall under the umbrella of being
> normative and what characters do not.  It's not just the normative word
> and it's not (necessarily) even just the sentence the normative word
> appears in.
> Worse, besides being more editing work, it will require more working
> group consensus effort, so there agreement on what's normative and what
> isn't.
> d/
> --
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

- Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20140619/0bc01827/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list