Raphael Geissert <[email protected]> writes: > Ok, perfect.
> Just one question: should I treat the "may not" of the newly added > triplet exception as a severity: important, certainty: possible? or why > was it phrased as "may not" instead of "must not?" I think that was supposed to be must not. I'd treat it as severity: serious, certainty: possible. I'll raise that with the Policy list. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
