diff --git a/rfcs/markup/RFC.md b/rfcs/markup/RFC.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..6d3cc869ea
--- /dev/null
+++ b/rfcs/markup/RFC.md
@@ -0,0 +1,244 @@
+# RFC: `parts()` API + `<Message>` rendering for markup placeholders
+
+**Status:** Draft
+**Goal:** Unblock safe, ergonomic markup / component interpolation in Paraglide JS
+
+---
+
+## Context
+
+Many users want to use **markup placeholders** (bold, links, inline components) in translations without using raw HTML or `dangerouslySetInnerHTML`.
+
+We already align on:
+
+- **MessageFormat 2–style markup placeholders** (`{#b}…{/b}`, `{#icon/}`)
+- Markup lives in the **inlang SDK AST**
+- Translators control _where_ markup appears
+- Rendering should be **safe by default** (no HTML parsing)
+
+The open question is:
+**What API should Paraglide JS expose?**
+
+## Requirements
+
+### Must have
+
+- **Framework-agnostic compiler output**
+
+  - No `.tsx`, `.vue`, or `.svelte` files generated
+
+- **MessageFormat 2–derived model**
+
+  - Start / end / standalone markup placeholders
+
+- **Injection-safe**
+
+  - Markup comes only from message patterns, not from interpolated values
+
+- **`m.key()` keeps working**
+
+  - Must still return a plain string for `title`, `aria-label`, logging, etc.
+
+### Nice to have
+
+- Simple mental model
+- Works well for **React, Vue, and Svelte**
+- Avoids per-message components or many imports
+- Allows **strong typing** for required markup tags
+
+## Proposed API
+
+### 1) `message.parts()` (only for messages with markup)
+
+For messages that contain markup placeholders, the generated message function additionally exposes:
+
+```ts
+m.contact();
+m.contact.parts();
+```
+
+`parts()` returns a **framework-neutral array of parts**:
+
+```ts
+type MessagePart =
+  | { type: "text"; value: string }
+  | { type: "markupStart"; name: string }
+  | { type: "markupEnd"; name: string }
+  | { type: "markupStandalone"; name: string };
+```
+
+- Markup comes from the **message AST**
+- Interpolated values are emitted as **text**, never re-parsed
+- Messages **without markup do not get `parts()`**
+- This keeps non-markup messages tree-shakable and minimal
+
+### Markup semantics (important clarification)
+
+- Markup placeholders are **wrappers**, not values
+  (`{#b}text{/b}`, `{#link}…{/link}`)
+- Therefore renderers receive **`children`** (the content inside the tag)
+- **Nested markup is allowed** (e.g. `{#link}{#b}Text{/b}{/link}`)
+
+> MessageFormat 2 allows markup but does not require tags to be hierarchical.
+> **Paraglide will initially support only well-formed, properly nested markup**
+> and treat crossing / invalid markup as a lint or build error.
+
+Standalone tags (`{#icon/}`) do **not** receive `children`.
+
+### 2) Framework-specific `<Message>` components (outside the compiler)
+
+Rendering is handled by **framework adapters**, not by generated files:
+
+- `@inlang/paraglide-js/react`
+- `@inlang/paraglide-js/vue`
+- `@inlang/paraglide-js/svelte`
+
+Each adapter exports a single `<Message>` component.
+
+### Rendering API shape
+
+The rendering API uses a **`markup` prop**, not `components`, to emphasize that:
+
+- Keys correspond to **markup placeholders defined in the message**
+- Keys must **exactly match** the tag names used by the translator
+
+Example message:
+
+```json
+{
+  "contact": "Send {#link}an email{/link} and read the {#b}docs{/b}."
+}
+```
+
+#### React
+
+```tsx
+<Message
+  message={m.contact}
+  inputs={{ email: "info@example.com" }}
+  markup={{
+    link: ({ children, inputs }) => (
+      <a href={`mailto:${inputs.email}`}>{children}</a>
+    ),
+    b: ({ children }) => <strong>{children}</strong>,
+  }}
+/>
+```
+
+#### Vue
+
+```vue
+<Message :message="m.contact" :inputs="{ email: 'info@example.com' }">
+  <template #link="{ children, inputs }">
+    <a :href="`mailto:${inputs.email}`"><component :is="children" /></a>
+  </template>
+  <template #b="{ children }">
+    <strong><component :is="children" /></strong>
+  </template>
+</Message>
+```
+
+#### Svelte
+
+```svelte
+<Message message={m.contact} inputs={{ email: "info@example.com" }}>
+  {#snippet link({ children, inputs })}
+    <a href={"mailto:" + inputs.email}>{children}</a>
+  {/snippet}
+  {#snippet b({ children })}
+    <strong>{children}</strong>
+  {/snippet}
+</Message>
+```
+
+**Important:**
+
+- No framework-specific files are generated by the compiler
+- Adapters live in separate packages
+- `markup` keys must match the exact tag names used in the message (type-checked)
+- `children` represents the (possibly nested) content inside the markup tag
+
+## Considered alternative APIs
+
+### 1) `m.message.rich(...)`
+
+```ts
+m.contact.rich(inputs, { b: (chunks) => <b>{chunks}</b> });
+```
+
+**Pros**
+
+- Very ergonomic in React
+
+**Cons**
+
+- Return type becomes framework-specific
+- Hard to support Svelte cleanly
+- Pushes compiler toward framework modes
+
+### 2) Overloading the message function
+
+```ts
+m.contact({ email }, { markup: { b: fn } });
+```
+
+**Pros**
+
+- Single entry point
+
+**Cons**
+
+- Ambiguous return type (string vs rich output)
+- Harder typing and worse DX at scale
+
+### 3) Per-message components (`m.contact.Rich`)
+
+```tsx
+<m.contact.Rich inputs={...} />
+```
+
+**Pros**
+
+- Excellent DX and type safety
+
+**Cons**
+
+- Many generated exports
+- Autocomplete noise
+- Adds extra abstraction per message
+
+### 4) Parsing the final string
+
+```tsx
+<Message str={m.contact(inputs)} />
+```
+
+**Pros**
+
+- Looks simple
+
+**Cons**
+
+- Injection risks unless inputs are escaped
+- Harder to lint and type-check
+- Markup is detected too late
+
+## Why Option B (`parts()` + `<Message>`)
+
+- Keeps the **compiler framework-agnostic**
+- Avoids bundle bloat for non-markup messages
+- Clean security boundary
+- Single, stable primitive (`parts()`)
+- Framework-native rendering via adapters
+- Strong typing tied to translator-defined markup
+- Naturally supports nested markup via `children`
+
+## Open questions (feedback welcome)
+
+1. Is `parts()` the right low-level primitive?
+2. Is `<Message>` the right primary API, or should we also expose a `renderMessage()` helper?
+3. For missing markup mappings, should the default behavior be:
+
+   - pass-through silently?
+   - warn?
+   - throw?