Since the clients don't have any consistency right now, I think it makes sense to make the minimal change to the spec. If the rules had meant that "***" should be styled and the examples were just wrong, this would have been fixing the non-normative examples, but since we've come to the conclusion that the rules are ambiguous, I think this means clarifying the rules and leaving the example alone (since authors in theory are likely to match the examples if the rule isn't clear).
To that end I've submitted the following change which I believe is acceptable for a draft PR since it just clarifies the situation and does not change what an implementer would do based on the examples. I believe council needs to review draft changes, so I request that they do so at their earliest convenience. And of course, let me know if you think this is wrong! https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1001 —Sam On Sat, Nov 7, 2020, at 11:26, Sam Whited wrote: > After a long and productive conversation with Ted, I think I have a > better understanding of this situation and the answer is that it's > just underspecified and there are multiple valid interpretations of > "***" and "****" depending on how you build your parser (though I > would still very much love to get other opinions). _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
