On Sun, Nov 06, 2005, Konstantin Khomoutov wrote:
> 2) The word "should" effectively means "may not" and thus creates a
> loophole for misinterpretation, and so we should use "must"
> (yes, it's a bad pun). ;-)
Well, I agree that "should" wasn't the correct word, but not for the
reason you list. I think we should use the kind of terminology that
is used in standards (e.g by IEEE) and in that kind of documents
"should" equals "is recommended that"; I should have used "shall"
instead ("shall" equals "is required to"). The word "must" is
deprecated in standards.
> "Any sequence of continued text records must be treated as a single
> solid record from the standpoint of its properties. If a sequence
> of continued text records is to have any properties that may be
> attached to a non-continued text record (i.e. navigational
> metadata, exceptional charset, etc) such properties must be
> attached to the very first record in such a sequence; all other
> records in a sequence must not have such properties attached to
> them since they derive it from the first record in a sequence".
It is a very good suggestion as long as we replace "must" with
"shall".
/Mike
_______________________________________________
plucker-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
