Re: Editorial comment - MUST, SHOULD, etc

Oops!  Following Alex Jordan's suggestion, I just raised it as an issue 
here:
https://github.com/w3c/respec/issues/1183

BTW, the issue that you linked below does point out that groups using 
respec "can simply just add f628857 back to your spec's CSS inline" in 
order to properly render "MUST" as "MUST".

thanks,
David Booth

On 04/13/2017 05:24 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>
> Here's the (closed :( ) respec issue:
>  https://github.com/w3c/respec/issues/1109
> Which suggests raising it here: https://github.com/w3c/tr-design/issues
>
> Happy to back you up on it! :)
>
> Rob
>
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 2:18 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org
> <mailto:david@dbooth.org>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Rob,
>
>     It sounds like the respec stylesheets need to be corrected.
>
>     If the WebSub spec is choosing to use respec, then I think the
>     Social Web group bears some responsibility for ensuring that the
>     respec stylesheets are corrected so that they do not misleadingly
>     display "MUST" as "must".
>
>     Or is this display of "MUST" as "must" a new W3C policy?   If so,
>     where should I lodge my request to get it changed?
>
>     thanks,
>     David Booth
>
>     On 04/13/2017 05:02 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>
>         David,
>
>         Lowercase is the new uppercase, apparently.  The relatively recently
>         completed annotation specifications are all lowercase too:
>             https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/
>         <https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/>
>         Along with any spec that uses the current respec stylesheets.
>
>         "Progress"
>
>         Rob
>
>
>         On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 1:45 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org
>         <mailto:david@dbooth.org>
>         <mailto:david@dbooth.org <mailto:david@dbooth.org>>> wrote:
>
>             The WebSub spec looks quite interesting!
>
>             However, as a small editorial matter, it is disconcerting to see
>             that the RFC 2119 words MUST, SHOULD, etc. are being
>         displayed in
>             the document in lower case.  This is misleading, because in fact
>             they are upper case -- as they should be, to stand out -- if
>         I view
>             the source HTML or if I copy and paste them.  Apparently the
>         style
>             sheet is doing some kind of weird gratuitous conversion to lower
>             case, in displaying them.
>
>             Please correct the style sheet to not change the case of
>         these RFC
>             2119 words, so that they are consistently used, displayed and
>             copy-and-pasted IN UPPER CASE.
>
>             Thanks!
>             David Booth
>
>
>
>
>         --
>         Rob Sanderson
>         Semantic Architect
>         The Getty Trust
>         Los Angeles, CA 90049
>
>
>
>
> --
> Rob Sanderson
> Semantic Architect
> The Getty Trust
> Los Angeles, CA 90049

Received on Thursday, 13 April 2017 21:52:17 UTC