2011/2/5 Philip Brown <[email protected]>: > 2011/2/5 Maciej Bliziński <[email protected]>: >> 2011/2/5 Philip Brown <[email protected]>: >>> To me, "libraries [..] should be kept in [...]" implies that "the >>> actual library, ie: the file" should be kept in... >>> >>> That would need to be cleared up, to explicitly allow symlinks. >> >> Doesn't the word "should" imply that in well-grounded cases a >> different approach can be used? > > No it doesnt. > > I understand what Peter F was saying, reguarding traditional RFC language. > But lets make our regs readable to "common folks". > > Example: If you mean "usually", then say "usually". > To most folks, "should" == "must".
Even if you reject RFC 2119[1] (which is a shame), we still do need to find a way to express ideas described in it. Would you like to propose an alternative? Maciej [1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
