IETF Logo Mail Archive

[calsify] =?UTF-8?Q?Re:__draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar_-_*this*, _=5Fthis=5F?= and "this"

"Robert Stepanek" <rsto@fastmailteam.com> Tue, 14 May 2019 07:55 UTC

Return-Path: <rsto@fastmailteam.com>
X-Original-To: calsify@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: calsify@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F4C412021F for <calsify@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 May 2019 00:55:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fastmailteam.com header.b=mXKMkkCz; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=zMxng1f1
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ra-TG0wwxAKt for <calsify@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 May 2019 00:55:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0008B1201F8 for <calsify@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 May 2019 00:55:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C3A4557 for <calsify@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 May 2019 03:55:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap7 ([10.202.2.57]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 14 May 2019 03:55:35 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= fastmailteam.com; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to :references:date:from:to:subject:content-type; s=fm2; bh=ORvtVYZ CQQddPXi0FQYAKwn8azatf1KI4RuHaQx7v3M=; b=mXKMkkCz5rKkUO1CBGUfdP1 3e4Hb6jL1JtLXl0/bj4NzFSfAUjxkB+PGRuQNO47JP4t4YoyzuRh3HUPFcOoF0gP h8namc0Cbseam4tb3WBAGRxaBYpbT+46LnE0XhFRlcO0euPb9noYqwTqEoqZtQeE OJPRNITDpeEmBFk7SnZZ2jJHPoRWYJ0+VQH54nx0cvGaq+eDMl+8iS9/Q8pTXxTL 5JkdYq1fWyDBpIKYCG4QJC35hfP3HqdOZ82ML6YPtc3XptKQYuUjk6RH9AK25eQ0 6v0/W+dRNQc9ZZYkmc5hvTB+osTb1dsEZiYxl0wE3iEtfAkA7Q2OvAd76BTWRwA= =
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=ORvtVY ZCQQddPXi0FQYAKwn8azatf1KI4RuHaQx7v3M=; b=zMxng1f1iTNREcjwV+IVbv eGn1IbTagRWmCze7rgegFbij68OC4b3HySdoT0afGjop9dkmA0brHE9KQtaNrdwf ooYRi0/q29zJmZOi7J0io3j2rMQcuit2YuXrsoN8SF9VSSjdGwtkDYo+Cw4OPNi8 +ONX9BZUgZX8AOUNdy3e/ghDZgUUnHWAkiG8ZfHth1gZvAe3pKtMN8b+ONvEpOQ5 AMErhDiXCNSI3fg0w1xcM36ycNveYL3ok/Suc8kZAPmlwLxtyz+FPdzNOr1gnWKD g3bWLlnFPczXyDXJCGr+aez5+iObPv+AXZotSbJ0rOzUhMM69GuTDHPCGHQQJjEQ ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:dnTaXHLRgVJ7y4y-5KfEFTeRP8BI6zSIdttt94IycKKzgIxr_KVOyg>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduuddrleehgdduvdehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsegrtd erreerreejnecuhfhrohhmpedftfhosggvrhhtucfuthgvphgrnhgvkhdfuceorhhsthho sehfrghsthhmrghilhhtvggrmhdrtghomheqnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpe hrshhtohesfhgrshhtmhgrihhlthgvrghmrdgtohhmnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgep td
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:dnTaXAc6hlxKmu4h6-cGtFkf04iX70pDpj5f91AagRrMd0Bo3ELn-A> <xmx:dnTaXPkPN_Ms7vWWi3Zui1OCVMB6FDhUiP7nFAAwS5wMwcerc5gWQA> <xmx:dnTaXAbPmTPhTDtG0SPtXvlQQe__kAnBRVijIO8nNE4MjRzC8osOUQ> <xmx:dnTaXC_0a1cC-REtt6BUM0YjeIFJjgBel9ygsSvxZdG22EUGsUGQRg>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 1389920577; Tue, 14 May 2019 03:55:34 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.1.6-532-g5582127-fmstable-20190514v6
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <db820982-6610-4cfe-93e4-83e424a0707b@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <a2c8cae0-0c00-ddc7-d039-558e146b30d7@gmail.com>
References: <a2c8cae0-0c00-ddc7-d039-558e146b30d7@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 09:55:33 +0200
From: Robert Stepanek <rsto@fastmailteam.com>
To: calsify@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="75bce049cd194ad7b52c69f0ad571504"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/calsify/Gecwo17Xrxec-TEdbHm-OVdV1Zg>
Subject: [calsify] =?UTF-8?Q?Re:__draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar_-_*this*, _=5Fthis=5F?= and "this"
X-BeenThere: calsify@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <calsify.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/calsify>, <mailto:calsify-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/calsify/>
List-Post: <mailto:calsify@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:calsify-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/calsify>, <mailto:calsify-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 07:55:38 -0000

On Tue, May 14, 2019, at 3:32 AM, Doug Royer wrote:
> On 5/13/19 8:56 AM, Robert Stepanek [Masked] wrote:
> >> 8. I am confused by highlighting meaning of *this*, _this_, and "this"
> >> As described in 1.3 and the highlighting methods throughout this spec.
> >> I have not seen these used in a draft before.
> >
> > The notation should make things simpler to read, not make them more
> > confusing. I'm sorry if it failed on you. Would you have an example of
> > an RFC which achieves this better? I'll also look at recent RFCs for
> > different formats.
> 
> Actually, I meant it literally. I am confused and do not understand 
> their meaning or difference at all.

Copying the relevant parts of section 1.3:

In this document, property and object definitions
are formatted like *this* and are referred to in other sections like
_this_. Verbatim text is formatted like "this".

You refer to this section, so now I'm confused what's confusing :) That being said, using two different notations, one to *define* and another to *refer to* a property, looks awkward to me as well, now that I look at it. If there are no objections, I will change the spec to use a single notation for property names. I still plan to use notation to notate verbatim text (its style literally is called "verb" in the RFC markup language).

Does this make things more clear to you?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email