Re: [Nbd] [PATCH] docs/proto.md: Clarify SHOULD / MUST / MAY etc

[Wouter Verhelst <w@...112...>]

On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 08:35:29PM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote:
> Wouter,
> 
> On 6 Apr 2016, at 20:21, Wouter Verhelst <w@...112...> wrote:
> 
> > I just merged three other patches, and now this won't apply anymore:
> 
> Eric and I are keeping you busy :-)

Yes you are :-)

Originally I thought this would be just a short discussion, but it's
eating up a lot of free time now. Almost worth it to have an in-person
meeting to discuss all this in detail...

> >> * 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.
> > - RFC2119 doesn't use bold (mostly because RFCs are plain text, anyway,
> >  but hey).
> > - It's more type work.
> > - Bold *and* uppercase isn't that much stronger than "just" uppercase, I
> >  think.
> > - 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?
> 
> Well, if you want a look, it's here:
>   https://github.com/abligh/nbd/blob/fix-formatting/doc/proto.md

As said in my mail to Eric, it doesn't convince me.

> If you decide you like the bold, I can fix that as a separate
> patch which does nothing but 'fix bold'. I'm not that fussed!

Good. I'd hate it if you were :-)

-- 
< 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