Re: BEGIN_SRC..END_SRC

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Davis Herring writes:

 > As RFC 2046 doesn't contain the "are to be interpreted as described in
 > RFC 2119." verbiage (which is not surprising, since it's older!), it
 > doesn't seem so plain to me that the (lowercase) "should" in 2046/4.1.4
 > should (hah!) be interpreted so strongly.

You'd have to specifically ask the authors of RFC 2046.  Nevertheless,
I stand by my interpretation, because RFC 2119, like all RFCs, is
based on best practice.  I think it likely that RFC 2046 conforms to
best practice of its time, which is contemporaneous with 2119.