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

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/ <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 rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org.

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 <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> 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 <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest