Re: [Rats] [rfc-i] document conventions around Capitalization of Terminology

[Henk Birkholz <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sandy,

thank you for the comprehensive and clear reply. We'll adhere to your 
highlighted recommendation.


Viele Grüße,

Henk (as an author & editor)

On 16.04.21 08:31, Sandy Ginoza wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> 
>> But, I am wondering about convention, and I wonder if there is some magic
>> keyphrase that needs to go into a Terminology Section such to indicate 
>> that
>> to the editors and the readers that we are following that convention.
>> Or if we should make up such a phrase.
> 
> We recommend the following on <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/tips/>:
> 
>     Keeping a list of directives to provide to the RFC Editor once your
>     document is approved for publication — for instance, if specific
>     terms must appear in a certain way (spelling, hyphenation,
>     capitalization, etc.), send us mail with your draft string in the
>     subject line.
> 
> 
> Please either send mail describing your style choices or include a note 
> in the text itself (e.g., For the RFC Editor: …).  Mail should be sent 
> to [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>.
> 
> 
> 
> In general, we agree with the comment that over-capitalization often 
> detracts from readability.  However, when terms are (seemingly) 
> inconsistently capitalized, we review how the terms are used and strive 
> for consistency within the document, cluster, and other referenced 
> documents.
> 
> Thanks for raising this topic for discussion - we hope to receive more 
> style notes from authors.
> Sandy Ginoza
> for the RFC Production Center
> 
>> On Apr 13, 2021, at 8:33 AM, Michael Richardson <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> In the RATS Architecture document we have spent some time (maybe too much
>> time), making sure that if we define some Term, that it is consistently
>> rendered like a Proper Noun. That is capitalized.
>> There are some terms which have renderings in both capitalized (our
>> definition), and uncapitalized (not exactly our definition).
>>
>> In a document of mine (BRSKI) which has now entered AUTH48, the RPC has
>> lower-cased all our in-document defined terminology.  I was very 
>> surprised by this.
>> I have asked to have that reversed, and I imagine that my wish will be 
>> granted.
>>
>> But, I am wondering about convention, and I wonder if there is some magic
>> keyphrase that needs to go into a Terminology Section such to indicate 
>> that
>> to the editors and the readers that we are following that convention.
>> Or if we should make up such a phrase.
>>
>> --
>> Michael Richardson <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>>           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RATS mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats
>