Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> So as I understand it, documents which adhere to rfc2119-update will
>> cite BCP14 and the RFCXXXX which this document will have?
>> or will it cite RFC2119 and RFCXXXX?
>>
>> Are you suggesting that we should be citing BCP14 though?
> Is there really something unclear about the boilerplate update in
> Section 2?:
No, maybe not unclear, but maybe I just didn't grok the [] clearly at first.
So, we would have [RFC2119] and [RFCxxxx] in my references, but not BCP14.
>> It seems that retaining section 1.1 might be worth it.
> Perhaps, though I don't think it really has archival value. Do others
> think it should be retained?
I don't feel strongly that it MUST be retained, just that it SHOULD.
:-)
>> XML format and screen readers.
>>
>> I have not looked deeply into the final RFC-format XML spec.
>> Does it already markup SHOULD/MUST/MAY in some useful way?
>> Could it? If it does, should this document point out this?
> That's a good point, and I will look into what this might need to say
> with respect to the XML markup.
Thank you!
I think that markup on these keywords would help screen readers if they learn
to use the XML instead.
(I also have some illusion that web browsers might soon render XML directly
via something like XSLT rather than doing this offline. )
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature