- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:58:06 +0100
- To: Daniel Barclay <daniel@fgm.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Daniel Barclay wrote:
>
> Martin Bernauer wrote:
>
>> ...
>>
>>> ... Your 'quote' is in fact a misquote, since what you wrote as
>>> 'SHOULD' is in fact 'should'.
>>
>>
>>
>> ... I don't see my
>> quotation as a misquote, I just used it to emphasize what is the most
>> relevant part of the quote.
>
>
> If you emphasize something in a quotation, you should indicate that
> the emphasis is from you (e.g., "[emphasis mine]" or
> "[emphasis added]").
>
> (Alternatively, use a form of emphasis that isn't used anywhere in
> the original (so it's obvious that it's from your quoting of the
> original text and not actually from the original text). For example,
> using the surrounding-asterisks style ("... whatever *should* be ...")
> when the original doesn't ever use that style makes it fairly clear
> that it's your emphasis and not the original's.))
>
> Daniel
>
>
In Martin's defence the original does not use 'SHOULD' anywhere, the
problem is that 'SHOULD' is conventionalized by RFC 2119, and I read
Martin's quotation in light of that convention
Jeremy
Received on Monday, 19 July 2004 15:58:43 UTC