Implement BCP 14 #79
Open
Implement BCP 14 #79
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR proposes to formally implement the best current practice around requirement terms, adding the usual paragraph defined by RFC 8174 in the introduction, and highlighting their use throughout the document (like the RFC Editor does for recently published RFCs).
I've also fixed a minor issue with the structure of one of the documents, and fixed a malformed reference. I turned some requirement keywords uppercase where they appeared to be missing, however some are still lowercase; as clarified by RFC 8174 the terms SHALL NOT (😜) be interpreted as BCP 14 terms when they are written in lowercase.