Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

RFC 2119 notation text #48

Closed
dagendresen opened this issue Feb 27, 2017 · 1 comment
Closed

RFC 2119 notation text #48

dagendresen opened this issue Feb 27, 2017 · 1 comment

Comments

@dagendresen
Copy link
Contributor

The Standards Documentation Specification (SDS) include the recommended RFC-2119-phrase in a chapter named "1.2 Key words". The reader might expect a chapter named "Key words" to include important words that are useful to understand the VOCAB standard, and the RFC 2119 keywords are not themselves such key words. I have explored some other technical documents to see how they include the RFC-2119-text. Many technical documents include the RFC-2119-phrase after the abstract and not inside any chapter. Some of the IETF RFC documents include this RFC-2119-phrase in a chapter named "Terminology". Here are some other examples of chapter names I found: "Requirements language" -- "RFC 2119 key words" -- "Notational conventions" -- "Notation" -- "Requirements" -- "Terminology" -- "Terminology and notation". The RFC-2119-phrase might perhaps be included in the "1.5 Definitions" chapter of the SDS?

In chapter 1.2 the RFC-2119-words as referred to as "key words", while in chapter 3.2.5 these words are referred to as "keywords". RFC 2119 itself refers to these words as "key words". Choosing the spelling "key words" throughout (as is used in RFC 2119) might be preferred?

In chapter 3.2.5 there is also one instance of the spelling "RFC2119" (with space missing).

dagendresen added a commit to dagendresen/vocab that referenced this issue Apr 10, 2017
Found some minor typographical issues in documentation-specification.md, and suggest to update the title for chapter 1.2 with the RFC key words (tdwg#48)
@baskaufs
Copy link

baskaufs commented Jul 6, 2023

In general point 1 of tdwg/ac#258, @Archilegt points out the most recent wording based on https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp14. We should just replace current text in all existing documents to follow this recommendation.

@baskaufs baskaufs closed this as completed Jul 6, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants