- From: Kaelig Deloumeau-Prigent via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 18:33:02 +0000
- To: public-design-tokens-log@w3.org
I agree we should review rendered formating of RFC2119 keywords to improve readability, but using **strong** seems to be the wrong answer to this issue, both due to incorrect semantics and because it doesn't carry intent well when copy/pasted and quoted. More on that in this article: https://tess.oconnor.cx/2007/08/revisiting-rfc2119-markup Note that ReSpec renders these keywords in `em` elements, with an `rfc2119` class, so we can style them. There's been debates in the past about this in the W3C repos, and there was no clear resolution https://github.com/w3c/tr-design/issues/126. Spec editors are free to ignore this particular RFC. The way I now see it, we have two choices: 1. Adhere strictly to RFC2119 and the W3C manual of style, using UPPER CASE in markdown and rendering them in small caps in HTML, as a readable compromise. 2. Ignore RFC2119, go lowercase both in markdown and rendered HTML: we state that the spec is authored using the RFC keywords without uppercasing them. Some people really like having uppercase or small caps because it breaks the flow of the sentence to very clearly show critical intent, while other prefer the prose to flow more naturally. The W3C has gone back and forth between various styles, and all specs differ on this. The second solution (lowercase all the things) seems appropriate for experienced spec writers, but could be a little error-prone for us (possible confusion between "normal must/should" and "2119 must/should". The first solution (strictly adhering to RFC2119 and W3C manual of style, but style them in small caps) could be safer, as it guides spec writers to practice deliberate usage of 2119 keywords. With all this context now presented, I'd like editors to make this decision, as they're the ones writing the spec. -- GitHub Notification of comment by kaelig Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/design-tokens/community-group/issues/65#issuecomment-918467463 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Monday, 13 September 2021 18:33:04 UTC