On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Ben Walton <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't think this is a case where you want to dumb down the language > and make it run contrary to commonly accepted usage in other contexts > (RFC's etc).
people complain about the language of the RFCs, too :) but, reguardless: I'll withdraw my objection, as long as we copy the RFC methodology of including a "key" to terms. Explicitly stating in the document, or in a page directly linked from that document, what "must, should, may", etc mean in our context. _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
