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

Fred Baker (fred) fred at cisco.com
Fri Jun 20 08:38:49 PDT 2014

On Jun 18, 2014, at 3:03 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

>> 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.
> This also seems like a mistake, at least in the long term.  That is,
> if you alter the XML vocabulary, then at some future date you can stop
> the incredibly stupid arguments about whether MUST and must are
> equivalent, because there'll be a way (checking the canonical version)
> to see whether a particular series of letters m-u-s-t is marked up in
> the way that calls it out as a special word.  This is practically the
> point of using markup.  (This is the very same reason I think that
> having some markup handling of non-ASCII characters is valuable, BTW.)

True, but not very relevant. The document people will be reading is the RFC, not the input that created it. So while it can be done in theory, it seems like an unnatural act to expect a reader to do.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20140620/a8ac79fa/attachment.asc>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list