[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: IDnits


Alexey Melnikov writes:

Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
I keep the RFC numbers and rewrite as Ken suggests. I'd started that already, because it optimises for readability and because idnits insists on seeing "RFC 2119" in that boilerplace sentence. 

It turns out that one can use:

  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
  "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
  document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.

  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
  "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
  document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
  "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
  document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119].

  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
  "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
  document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1].

  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
  "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
  document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [KEYWORDS].

  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
  "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
  document are to be interpreted as described in [KEYWORDS].


Thanks.
I was using one of the last two, and idnits version 1.103 complained. 1.103 must have been somewhat imperfect. I now upgraded to 1.118, and it only gives sensible warnings. Great. Why didn't I upgrade before?
However, I already rewrote and like the result better. It names the subject at hand, the document being referred to, or both, depending on what's best in any given paragraph. 

Arnt