Re: Editorial styling inconsistencies when referring to Structured Fields

Hey Mark,

On Wed, 16 Feb 2022, 22:28 Mark Nottingham, <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> I wasn't terribly happy about including ABNF in SF, but IIRC some really
> wanted it because it's expected for HTTP headers. *shrug*
>
> I'd recommend avoiding it if possible, or at least only using it in
> separate ABNF blocks (not prose).
>

I can get behind that. Although I'll note that proxy-status has 29
instances in prose and priorities has 2. Maybe we should fix these up as
part of AUTH48, in order to set some consistent examples?

Cheers
Lucas