§7.2.10

Small Capitals

Small caps—uppercase, or the text layer's mixed case?

✅ NormativeSettled. The requirement holds as written.📄 Page ruleCan be applied from the page alone.Read §7.2.10 in the RFC ↗

The requirement

Text set in small capitals MUST be transcribed as uppercase letters. The output MUST NOT add small-caps styling, and MUST NOT substitute the text layer's mixed case for the capitals the page shows.

When it applies

Running heads, bylines and firm names are often set in small capitals: capital letterforms at lowercase height, usually with a full-size initial. The text layer may hold Jackson while the page shows JACKSON; Markdown has no small-caps mark.

Sketch of the printed page — layout, not output

JACKSON, J., dissenting          ← small caps on the page
WASSON & ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED   ← the same face, full name

Reading the examples. Each one pairs a source page with the output the rule expects. ✅ Sample: the rule applies. ❌ Counter-sample: it looks like it applies and does not, or a rendering got it wrong. A non-conforming output, in red, is shown only for contrast. … marks content left out of an excerpt.

Requirements

Every letter printed as a capital letterform — full-size or small — MUST be an uppercase letter in the output.
The rendered letterforms take precedence over the text layer's casing — see Cell Text Fidelity (§9.6.3).
Small caps are not emphasis: they MUST NOT be turned into bold, italic or an HTML style. Bold or italic set in small caps is still marked, from the glyph weight and slant — see Bold and Italics (§7.2.1).
Letter-spacing is typography, not content: the letters of a spaced word MUST be written as one word.

✅ SampleThe rule applies

a running head

JACKSON, J., dissenting centred under the citation line, in small capitals; the citation line itself carries a printed ____, and the page number 15 sits at its right.

Source page

Source: Supreme Court of the United States, Jackson, J., dissenting, 600 U.S. ___ (2023), p.15 (public domain)

Expected output · excerpt, running head

Cite as: 600 U. S. ____ (2023)

JACKSON, J., dissenting

…

Markdown

Cite as: 600 U. S. \_\_\_\_ (2023)

15

JACKSON, J., dissenting

<!-- … -->

✅ SampleThe rule applies

a letter-spaced footer

HALVORNE & VOSS, CHARTERED in bold small caps with wide letter-spacing, over an address line. The masthead's Trial Law TIPS, in bold italic, is also letter-spaced, which the text layer renders as Tria l La w; the page shows the words Trial Law.

Source page

Expected output · excerpt, masthead and footer

Trial Law TIPS

Page 9

…

HALVORNE & VOSS, CHARTERED 410 Harbor Row, Suite 300, Port Selby, ST 55021 (555) 013-0220 dale@halvorneandvoss.example

Markdown

***Trial Law
TIPS***

Page 9

<!-- … -->

HALVORNE & VOSS, CHARTERED
410 Harbor Row, Suite 300, Port Selby, ST 55021
(555) 013-0220 dale@halvorneandvoss.example

✅ SampleThe rule applies

run-in small-cap headings in a statute

(2) NO PARTICULAR OR UNIFORM ELECTRONIC VISIT VERIFICATION SYSTEM REQUIRED.—Nothing in the amendment …: the heading in small capitals, an em dash, then the paragraph on the same line. See Run-In Headings (§6.8). Heading (4) and the body text break words at line ends (REQUIRE-MENTS, selec-tion, elec-tronic), which are joined — see Line-End Hyphenation (§7.2.7).

Source page

Source: Public Law 114-255 (21st Century Cures Act), 130 Stat. 1278, §13001 (public domain)

Expected output · excerpt, paragraphs (2) to (4)

…

(2) NO PARTICULAR OR UNIFORM ELECTRONIC VISIT VERIFICATION SYSTEM REQUIRED.—Nothing in the amendment made by this section shall be construed to require the use of a particular or uniform electronic visit verification system (as defined in subsection (l)(5) of section 1903 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b), as inserted by subsection (a)) by all agencies or entities that provide personal care services or home health care under a State plan under title XIX of the Social Security Act (or under a waiver of the plan) (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.).

(3) NO LIMITS ON PROVISION OF CARE.—Nothing in the amendment made by this section may be construed to limit, with respect to personal care services or home health care services provided under a State plan under title XIX of the Social Security Act (or under a waiver of the plan) (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.), provider selection, constrain beneficiaries’ selection of a caregiver, or impede the manner in which care is delivered.

(4) NO PROHIBITION ON STATE QUALITY MEASURES REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in the amendment made by this section shall be construed as prohibiting a State, in implementing an electronic visit verification system (as defined in subsection (l)(5) of section 1903 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b), as inserted by subsection (a)), from establishing requirements related to quality measures for such system.

…

Sample sources2

Public-domain U.S. federal government source material.

Supreme Court of the United States, Jackson, J., dissenting, 600 U.S. ___ (2023), p.15
Public Law 114-255 (21st Century Cures Act), 130 Stat. 1278, §13001

Rule id text-small-capitals · text formatting inline

When it applies

Requirements

Neighbouring rules, and how they differ

More