On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 01:41:31PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 04/06/2016 01:21 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >
> >> * Put the above terms in bold.
> >
> > I'm a bit in dubio about this bit:
> >
> > - It's something that will tend to be forgotten, which would then result
> > in a text with some things in bold and some things not in bold, which
> > would be confusing.
>
> Most contributors are either familiar with the document conventions, or
> are copy-pasting, so it will probably be correctly done either way (as
> long as the document starts from a consistent all-bold or no-bold state).
Well, we've had a few normative should/may thingies in lower case too,
so that's not a given.
[...]
> > - RFC2119 doesn't use bold (mostly because RFCs are plain text, anyway,
> > but hey).
>
> The RFC-to-html converters that add bold as a post-processing pass are
> optional.
>
> > - It's more type work.
>
> That one is true, particularly if a post-process pass can do the work.
>
> > - Bold *and* uppercase isn't that much stronger than "just" uppercase, I
> > think.
>
> I tend to agree with this one; ALL_CAPS is enough to call attention to
> the word used in normative sense vs. in casual language. I'm 50:50 on
> whether bold makes it better (I won't object to bold, but I wouldn't
> have proposed it either).
I'm going to reject it, then.
(have a look at the first paragraph of the "Newstyle negotiation"
chapter; it gets fairly close to a shouting match there)
--
< ron> I mean, the main *practical* problem with C++, is there's like a dozen
people in the world who think they really understand all of its rules,
and pretty much all of them are just lying to themselves too.
-- #debian-devel, OFTC, 2016-02-12
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Nbd-general mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nbd-general
