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). > - 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). > - Typographically, I am of the opinion that overdoing the boldness (no > pun intended) makes a text harder to read, mostly because it tends to > be somewhat distracting > > I'll readily admit that it's all a bit weak, which is why I say "in > dubio". > > Thoughts? I'll leave it to others to make the final decision on boldness; but definitely agree that the normative changes should be separate (and go in now) from the typographical changes (whether or not we decide to take the bold). -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature