[rfc-i] draft-iab-html-rfc-02, "9.9 <bcp14>"

[julian.reschke at greenbytes.de (Julian Reschke)]

On 2016-03-01 18:10, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
> On 3/1/16 6:34 AM, HANSEN, TONY L wrote:
>> On 3/1/16, 9:19 AM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 2016-03-01 15:14, HANSEN, TONY L wrote:
>>>> On 3/1/16, 2:59 AM, "rfc-interest on behalf of Julian Reschke" <rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org on behalf of julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-iab-html-rfc-02.html#rfc.section.9.9>:
>>>>>
>>>>> "This element marks up words like MUST and SHOULD with an HTML <span>
>>>>> element with the CSS class "bcp14"."
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe a better choice would be to map to <em>, because this is a
>>>>> case of adding emphasis (but still with a specific CSS class).
>>>>
>>>> That assumes that adding emphasis is the right thing to do. It might not be.
>>>>
>>>> -1
>>>
>>> When you say "adding emphasis", do you refer to the markup (<span> vs
>>> <em>), or to the display (which I do not propose to change at all)?
>>
>> I was referring to the markup, using <span class=bcp14> vs your proposed change to just use <em>.
>>
>
> The goal here is to allow people to emphasize requirement language if
> they choose to do so in their own environment with their own CSS. When I
> spoke with the IESG about this, the IESG's preference was to not add any
> visual or other explicit emphasis on requirement language at this time.

OK, so IIUC, we're using <span class="bcp14"> instead of <em> because we 
don't want a visual difference unless people use custom CSS?

Best regards, Julian