rfc-2119: Difference between revisions
(noted no need for a new microformat) |
AndyMabbett (talk | contribs) ("Authors who follow these guidelines should incorporate this phrase near the beginning of their document") |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
[http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt RFC 2119] is often used for expressing requirements in documents by IETF, W3C, [http://microformats.org microformats.org], and others. | [http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt RFC 2119] is often used for expressing requirements in documents by IETF, W3C, [http://microformats.org microformats.org], and others. | ||
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in such documents are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. | |||
== markup suggestions == | == markup suggestions == | ||
Revision as of 16:52, 26 August 2007
RFC 2119
RFC 2119 is often used for expressing requirements in documents by IETF, W3C, microformats.org, and others.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in such documents are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
markup suggestions
When using RFC 2119 terms, consider re-using the mark-up pattern from the W3C Manual of Style, and perhaps their suggested style rule as well.
In addition, see Edward O’Connor POSH suggestion for marking up the commonly used initial paragraph declaring RFC 2119 terms in documents.
microformat thoughts
Some have suggested considering a new microformat for marking up use of RFC 2119 terms.
It appears there is no need for such a new microformat however. Following W3C's established practice, and Edward O'Connor's POSH suggestion for the initial paragraph, appears to be sufficient.