Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case
2012-05-18 00:07:29
Lee Howard wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Dave Cridland
Consider:
"An octet may contain 0-255".
"An octet contains 0-255".
"An octet might contain 0-255" - or it might not?
"The Foo octet MUST lie between 0 and 127 inclusive; that is, the highest
bit MUST NOT
be set."
"A valid Foo octet lies between 0 and 127 inclusive; that is, the highest
bit is never set."
We do not improve clarity by making sentences harder to read.
Or colorizing it.
We should avoid rfc2119 language where possible, to be clear, but not at the
expense of clarity.
+1, I think this is more specific to documents and not RFC2119. I
don't think we can generalize RFC2119.
--
HLS
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- RE: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case, (continued)
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case, Ole Jacobsen
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case, Dave Crocker
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case, Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case, Randy Bush
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case, Dave Cridland
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case, Julian Reschke
- RE: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case, Lee Howard
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case,
Hector Santos <=
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case, Marshall Eubanks
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case, ned+ietf
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case, Hector Santos
Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case, Dave Crocker
Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case, ned+ietf
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case, Ralph Droms
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case, ned+ietf
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case, Ralph Droms
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case, Marshall Eubanks
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case, Eric Rosen
|
|
|