Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case

[Marshall Eubanks <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Ralph Droms <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On May 16, 2012, at 10:22 PM 5/16/12, Ned Freed wrote:
>
>>
>>> On May 16, 2012, at 5:22 PM 5/16/12, [e-mail] wrote:
>>
>>>>>>  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
>>>>>>  "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
>>>>>>  document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] when they
>>>>>>  appear in ALL CAPS.  These words may also appear in this document in
>>>>>>  lower case as plain English words, absent their normative meanings.
>>>>
>>>>> i like this a lot
>>>>
>>>> I agree. In fact I just incorporated it into the media types registration
>>>> update.
>>
>>> To be sure of meaning and help confusion avoidance, I would prefer that the
>>> key words not appear in the document in lower case and that authors use the
>>> suggested replacement words (or break out the thesaurus?).
>>
>> Preferring it is one thing; I'm OK with that. Making it some sort of
>> hard-and-fast rule is another matter entirely. We have too many of those
>> as it is.
>
> Well, here's another example of imprecision in the written word.  What I meant is that my preference would be a requirement that RFC 2119 key words not appear in lower case at all.
>
> Seems to me that precision of meaning overrides graceful use of the language.  Making the requirement something like "RFC 2119 key words SHOULD NOT appear in lower case unless the lower case usage is clearly non-normative" means we have to think a lot harder about some details and (AD hat and reading glasses firmly in place) we have enough details to think about already.  So, I recommend an errata to RFC 2119: "These words MUST NOT appear in a document in lower case."

...except in a direct quote of another document.

Regards
Marshall

>
> - Ralph
>
>>
>>                               Ned
>