Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Consider omitting technical information on how RFC2119 terms are integrated in HTML #41

Closed
csarven opened this issue Dec 19, 2018 · 7 comments
Milestone

Comments

@csarven
Copy link
Member

csarven commented Dec 19, 2018

https://www.w3.org/TR/accname-1.1/#rfc-2119-keywords mentions 'strong element with class="rfc2119"'

Is the information about the HTML element and attribute have any use for a reader?

@jnurthen jnurthen added this to the 1.2 milestone Jan 3, 2019
@joanmarie
Copy link
Contributor

To be clear: You are suggesting we delete the entire paragraph? If not, please clarify what you are proposing. Thanks!

@csarven
Copy link
Member Author

csarven commented Jan 3, 2019

No.

Perhaps just change the first sentence from:

RFC-2119 keywords are formatted in uppercase and contained in a strong element with class="rfc2119".

to something along these lines:

RFC-2119 keywords are formatted in uppercase and bolded.

Edit: I said "bolded" but whatever is clear or conveys "strong importance, seriousness, or urgency for its contents"

@accdc
Copy link
Contributor

accdc commented Jan 4, 2019

Hi,
Does this make more sense?

"RFC-2119 keywords are formatted in uppercase and in bold type font."

Added to the 1.2 draft AccName fork at
https://github.com/accdc/accname/commit/cf7079997a6a0eec72fa4e26e97e55d884988b8d

@csarven
Copy link
Member Author

csarven commented Jan 4, 2019

That works, thanks.

@csarven csarven closed this as completed Jan 4, 2019
@joanmarie
Copy link
Contributor

Reopening for now because the accepted change isn't merged.

@joanmarie joanmarie reopened this Jan 16, 2019
@accdc
Copy link
Contributor

accdc commented Jan 25, 2019

Hi Jonie, I just pushed this to branch "draftdoc" for review.

@MelSumner
Copy link
Contributor

Resolved with #156

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants