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

Phillip Hallam-Baker phill at hallambaker.com
Mon Jun 23 14:42:40 PDT 2014

As a meta point, if you are not doing semantic markup specific to the IETF
then there is absolutely no reason for XML2RFC to exist at all.

I don't use XML2RFC as an editing format any more, I use HTML with a small
amount of ad hoc markup to allow me to generate the semantic markup already
in XML2RFC and to deal with references.

The only point at which XML2RFC format need exist is at the input and
output of the RFCeditor process and the ID submission scheme. If it isn't
an IETF semantic markup then there is no point.

I have no difficulty generating &must; from MUST, in fact I already
generate compliance tables etc. automatically. Working with a document that
has the semantic markup already embedded makes tool writing a lot easier.
It turns out that not every occurrence of MUST SHOULD and MAY are normative
language. There is one corner case that will occur to you the second you
write code...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20140623/69e1a89e/attachment.html>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list