IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 16 May 2012 20:03 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00B1921F861C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 May 2012 13:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.534
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.534 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.065, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sBSkPteevKB8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 May 2012 13:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77ECB21F8610 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 May 2012 13:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.7] (helo=PST.JCK.COM) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1SUkLp-000AaX-Sb; Wed, 16 May 2012 15:57:37 -0400
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 16:03:09 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, 'Peter Saint-Andre' <stpeter@stpeter.im>, 'Ole Jacobsen' <ole@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case
Message-ID: <867B9B680EBE3644D4CCD518@PST.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <097701cd3394$113cb520$33b61f60$@olddog.co.uk>
References: <562A61B995B24BD854A4D154@192.168.0.2> <m262bwchr9.wl%randy@psg.com> <08ab01cd3372$65934110$30b9c330$@olddog.co.uk> <tslaa18w21n.fsf@mit.edu> <4FB3E99D.1040606@stpeter.im> <CAHBDyN6SVUxKm4K1__zu47qNup-RF1L8exfb8n9n199y7fpGAQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1205161124380.47757@bxb-vpn3-744.cisco.com> <4FB3F54F.2030705@stpeter.im> <097701cd3394$113cb520$33b61f60$@olddog.co.uk>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: 'Sam Hartman' <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 20:03:25 -0000

--On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 19:45 +0100 Adrian Farrel
<adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:

> Remind me:
> Is bold must more or less compelling that underlined must. And
> where does uppercase MUST fit in?
> 
> I fear the slightly richer publication format will give rise
> to a slightly more complex revision of RFC 2119.

Let's try to remember that many of the comments/ requests for
alternate publication formats have been to make "display" more a
function of the devices being used.  Depending on type style
variations (style, size, font variations, underlining, etc.)
would pretty much defeat that particular claimed requirement.
As I take Sam's note to sort of point out, even the use of
uppercase to imply specific semantics can be problematic; we
should at least strive to not make things worse, IMO.

    john

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email