BCP14 rendering output in v3 vs v2 about asciidoctor-rfc HOT 4 CLOSED

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.)

What say you?

from asciidoctor-rfc.

@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.

At least we have this settled! 👍

from asciidoctor-rfc.

Implemented. Refer spec: opt-out flag for bold uppercase BCP14 words is :no-rfc-bold-bcp14:. [bcp14]#X# is respected in v2.

from asciidoctor-rfc.

Awesome thanks @opoudjis !

from asciidoctor-rfc.