Standardize format and style in CABF documents

[dzacharo]

The SCWG has considered setting some writing rules for its guidelines which could be extended at the Forum level and be applied to all CABF Guidelines.

Standardizing format and style would be helpful and would improve the readability of the Guidelines.

Some of the items we could standardize:

• bulleted list conventions
• table conventions
• use of numbers
• use of examples
• date formats (somewhat related to Standardize on date format for date of incorporation or registration #193)

[ryancdickson]

Additional items for us to consider:

• related to columns: column width and alignment (see Proposal: Make OCSP Optional, Require CRLs, and Incentivize Automation / Short-Lived Certificates #414 (comment)
• use of straight quotes, over smart quotes.

[ryancdickson]

Additional item to consider:

• How should we refer to extensions and fields?

Example:

• "CRL Distribution Points extension" or
• "cRLDistributionPoints extension"

Having a consistent approach will make it easier to search for terms across the document.

[barrini]

to wait until have a volunteer to standardize the format

[ryancdickson]

[Note: Continuing to add things here as I learn of them...]

Consider use of numbered (ordered) lists over bulleted (unordered) lists, they are easier to reference. [thanks, @CBonnell for this observation during our MPIC ballot work]

[castillar]

Some information being assembled in the CABF Wiki.

[dzacharo]

Regarding formatted dates, we can also take guidance from mozilla/pkipolicy#236. Last recommendation from @robstradling is to use https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3339.

[robstradling]

Looks like that recommendation came from @RufusJWB. I agree though.

[dzacharo]

Indeed, apologies for the mix-up :)