Philip Brown <[email protected]> writes: > 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".
The policies public/readership is not "common folks", whatever is that, but computer scientists, engineers, &c, i.e literates. > Example: If you mean "usually", then say "usually". > To most folks, "should" == "must". This is so profoundly wrong that I'm on the point of fainting... -- Peter _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
