You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Dec 23, 2019. It is now read-only.
The ticket on what to do with these is still pending. The [bcp14] macro is currently not processed in v2, so the text will just flow through; I can make it process them and capitalise them in v2.
Still pending is to find a shorter macro than [bcp14]. What I can do is have a document flag :bold_bcp14 , and if that flag is on, then any boldface BCP14 text will be converted in bcp14 markup. That is essentially the MMark solution, we can make it opt-in or opt-out (because there may be contexts where you want to boldface a MUST without it being a BCP14 text.)
@opoudjis I think the MMark shorthand converting "bold" to BCP14 keywords is fine, so in asciidoc we can use *MUST* to represent BCP14 MUST.
You're right that sometimes a "must" is not a BCP14 "MUST", as described here https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8174. However it would be rare (and probably bad practice) that in an RFC one wants to bold a normal "must".
We could have a flag to opt-out, like :rfc-bold-bcp14.
In the README it says
v3: <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>. Not supported in v2.
Should be
v3: <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>. Rendered as inline text "MUST NOT" in v2.
@opoudjis could you confirm that v2 does render them? Thanks!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: