It depends on who the recipient of the policy doc is. One, very large,
contractor we were working with considered MUST to mean SHOULD, and
SHOULD to be IF YOU CAN BE RSED. They're government funded so no-one cared.
Stephen
heretic wrote:
I guess your assertion hinges on how one interprets the word "should".
Perhaps I am English-challenged, but I always took "should" to have a
suggestive or advisory connotation, while "shall" or "must" are
obligatory :-)
One quick comment on this... I always write "must" in draft policy
documents; but the higher-ups change them all to "should" before the
final version. I am told that "should" is Policy-Speak for "must",
since it allows for discretion in considered instances.
Basically, it means "for all intents and purposes, you must not do
this on pain of death but there is wiggle room to plead your case if
greater evil might occur by following the rule".
Personally I'd keep "must" and let people sort it out for themselves,
because you should never suggest the rules are still being followed if
they're being broken. But policy speak dictates "should".
In any case, we are dealing with a language (English, that is) which
produced the rule "I before E except when it's not." I know, it used
to be "...before C" but that's not actually true ("weird" isn't it).
Crazy language :)
h
--
--- <http://www.200ok.com.au/>
--- The future has arrived; it's just not
--- evenly distributed. - William Gibson
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
