Re: Specification "NOTE" paragraphs and normative language

ietf-smtp

Re: Specification "NOTE" paragraphs and normative language

2008-05-18 10:12:10



On Sun, 2008-05-18, Dave Crocker wrote:

I think it is worth distinguishing text that is secondary from normative text
that is being emphasized.  So I'm inclined to agree that "NOTE:" should be
used for non-normative stuff.

That leaves the question of what convention is appropriate for marking 
emphasized normative text.

I don't have a ready suggestion, so I thought I'd ask you folk...?


How about "IMPORTANT:"?

-- 
Bill McQuillan <McQuilWP(_at_)pobox(_dot_)com>

[More with this subject...]

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Specification "NOTE" paragraphs and normative language, Dave Crocker Re: Specification "NOTE" paragraphs and normative language, Bill McQuillan <= Re: Specification "NOTE" paragraphs and normative language, Tony Hansen Re: Specification "NOTE" paragraphs and normative language, Alessandro Vesely Re: Specification "NOTE" paragraphs and normative language, SM Re: Specification "NOTE" paragraphs and normative language, John C Klensin Re: Specification "NOTE" paragraphs and normative language, Dave Crocker Re: Specification "NOTE" paragraphs and normative language, John C Klensin

Previous by Date:	Re: BATV pseudo-Last Call, SM
Next by Date:	Re: Specification "NOTE" paragraphs and normative language, Alessandro Vesely
Previous by Thread:	Specification "NOTE" paragraphs and normative language, Dave Crocker
Next by Thread:	Re: Specification "NOTE" paragraphs and normative language, Tony Hansen
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]