Subject: [rfc-i] Capitalization of "working group"

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 08:46:14 -0700

From RFC 7322:

. . .
    Where the RFC Editor may suggest
    changes in wording for clarity and readability, it is up to the
    author, working group, or stream-approving body to determine whether
    the changes have an impact on the technical meaning of the document
    [RFC4844].
. . .
       It is a list of abbreviations appearing in RFCs and
       sometimes reflects discussions with authors, Working Group 
Chairs,
       and/or Area Directors (ADs).

 From https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt:

WG        *- Working Group

 From the directory of all RFCs:

# grep "working group" rfc7???.txt | wc -l
      587
# grep "Working Group" rfc7???.txt | wc -l
      379

I prefer "Working Group" to "working group". Regardless, we should 
probably pick one.

--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2017 17:36:42 -0400

Paul,

I also prefer “Working Group”, and agree that we should pick one and be
consistent going forward. The exception, I guess, would be if the RFC was
discussing something other than an IETF Working Group, but that seems
unlikely.

Cheers,
Andy

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]> wrote:

>       sometimes reflects discussions with authors, Working Group Chairs,

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:54:42 +0800

Folks,

Isn't there are difference between e.g. "...the MPLS Working Group..."
and "...a working group in the IETF..."??

/Loa

On 2017-04-09 05:36, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> consistent going forward. The exception, I guess, would be if the RFC
> was discussing something other than an IETF Working Group, but that
> seems unlikely.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     From RFC 7322:
>
>     . . .
>     From https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt
>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt>:
>
>     WG        *- Working Group
>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>
>
>
>
>

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: [email-masked]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [email-masked]
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

---

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2017 09:27:16 -0700

> and "...a working group in the IETF..."??

Maybe. (I say that in seriousness.) For some nouns, you capitalize them 
when used in a name but don't when they are descriptive; for other 
nouns, you do both. It's a judgement call, and I trust the RFC Editor to 
make that call and to get the editing team to enforce it.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 16:10:25 -0700

> and "...a working group in the IETF..."??

Exactly.

When the term is used as a reference to of a specific effort -- 
essentially serving as a name, such as "the Working Group" -- then 
capitalization makes sense.

When the term is used generically -- eg, 'a working group' -- it doesn't 
make sense to capitalize it.

d/

ps. Any correlation this assessment has to THE Internet vs. AN internet 
is entirely intentional.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2017 17:12:20 -0700 (PDT)

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
> When the term is used as a reference to of a specific effort -- essentially
> serving as a name, such as "the Working Group" -- then capitalization makes
> sense.
> 
> When the term is used generically -- eg, 'a working group' -- it doesn't make
> sense to capitalize it.
> 
> 
> d/

I think that depends on whether or not we consider "Working Group" to 
be an IETF "term of art" in which case I would always capitalize it.

Ole

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 16:25:39 -0700

I can’t help to respond to this thread, who cares.

Do we really need to define rules for things as arcane as if “working group” should be capitalized?  I see no difference between

  working group
  Working Group
  6MAN working group
  6MAN Working Group

As I said, who cares.

Bob

---

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 16:48:39 -0700

> I can’t help to respond to this thread, who cares.

Many people, particularly non-native speakers of English, care. They 
don't want to look foolish if they pick the wrong capitalization.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 17:15:28 -0700

> On Apr 11, 2017, at 4:48 PM, Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Many people, particularly non-native speakers of English, care. They don't want to look foolish if they pick the wrong capitalization.

Sorry, but I don’t think there is a “wrong capitalization” in this case.

Bob

---

From: "HANSEN, TONY L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 00:52:44 +0000

I agree; any capitalization will be a matter of perceived convention, and neither is wrong.

I think Dave’s characterization matches closest to what I’ve observed in >most< uses, but not all.

	Tony Hansen

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:14:23 -0400

Capitalization in English has followed John Hart's rule that the first word
in a sentence and proper nouns are capitalized since the mid 17th century
(Hart died in 1574). The practice was well established long before the
beginning of compulsory schooling in Victorian times.

I suggest that this is a case where it is unnecessary for the IETF to vary
what is already the standard.

If we refer to the SPLUNGE Working Group, then 'Working Group' appears as
part of its title and is thus a proper noun and is thus capitalized. If we
are talking about what a working group is doing then it is not.
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 09:53:15 -0700

Capitalization rules, like everything else in English, are fluid. Proper
nouns aren't all capitalized, e.g.: "You can xerox a kleenex."

E.g., the Associated Press has recommended using "internet" rather than
"Internet", even for the proper noun of the singular, global
communications system we all work on. Many newspapers and other media
outlets follow their lead.

I don't think it matters what is used. Consistency is helpful, but not
critical.

Joe

On 4/12/2017 8:14 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> Capitalization in English has followed John Hart's rule that the first
> word in a sentence and proper nouns are capitalized since the mid 17th
> century (Hart died in 1574). The practice was well established long
> before the beginning of compulsory schooling in Victorian times.
>
> I suggest that this is a case where it is unnecessary for the IETF to
> vary what is already the standard.
>
> If we refer to the SPLUNGE Working Group, then 'Working Group' appears
> as part of its title and is thus a proper noun and is thus
> capitalized. If we are talking about what a working group is doing
> then it is not.
>
>
>
>

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 20:11:18 -0400

If you write xerox, you are using it as a synonym for photocopy and it is
thus not a proper noun. Same if you google the Internet.

AP are ignorant dolts who don't know better. We do.

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Joe Touch <[email-masked]> wrote:

> "Internet", even for the proper noun of the singular, global communications
> system we all work on. Many newspapers and other media outlets follow their
> lead.
>
> century (Hart died in 1574). The practice was well established long before
> the beginning of compulsory schooling in Victorian times.
>
> rfc-interest mailing [email-masked]://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>
>
>

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:20:40 -0700

On 4/12/2017 5:11 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> If you write xerox, you are using it as a synonym for photocopy and it
> is thus not a proper noun. Same if you google the Internet.
>

We can know whatever we want, but we don't control English.

And we don't enforce IETF protocol requirements, let alone how
"Internet" is spelled elsewhere.

Just as the AP points off to Webster's New World College dictionary, we
should use an existing style guide for such things, IMO.

Joe

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:53:32 +1200

Hmm. I'm wondering whether to capitalize (or capitalise) bike shed?

---

From: "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 10:30:24 -0700

Hello all,

Interesting thread.

I am sympathetic to how capitalization rules can be confusing to
everyone (not just non-native English speakers). That said, I think
simply requiring "Working Group" in all instances is not really the
right approach for a variety of reasons. For one, it's really not a
unique term of art; other SDOs (e.g., IEEE - see
https://standards.ieee.org/develop/wg.html) use "working groups" as
well. For another, being able to talk about working groups as opposed
to, for instance, the Internet Area Working Group, is useful.

In this case, the RFC Editor will stick with the CMOS guidelines about
capitalization, which summarized say that when used as a proper noun, we
will capitalize it. When used as a common noun, we won't.

Hope that helps,
Heather

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 13:48:49 -0400

That's cMOS. They use lower case for proper nouns like Internet.

---

From: Jim Schaad <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 12:44:02 -0700

Complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor?

I remember burning into a CMOS when I was young

-----Original Message-----
From: rfc-interest [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 10:30 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Capitalization of "working group"

Hello all,

Interesting thread.

I am sympathetic to how capitalization rules can be confusing to everyone
(not just non-native English speakers). That said, I think simply requiring
"Working Group" in all instances is not really the right approach for a
variety of reasons. For one, it's really not a unique term of art; other
SDOs (e.g., IEEE - see
https://standards.ieee.org/develop/wg.html) use "working groups" as well.
For another, being able to talk about working groups as opposed to, for
instance, the Internet Area Working Group, is useful.

Hope that helps,
Heather