> I guess your assertion hinges on how one interprets the word "should". > Perhaps I am English-challenged, but I always took "should" to have a > suggestive or advisory connotation, while "shall" or "must" are > obligatory :-)
One quick comment on this... I always write "must" in draft policy documents; but the higher-ups change them all to "should" before the final version. I am told that "should" is Policy-Speak for "must", since it allows for discretion in considered instances. Basically, it means "for all intents and purposes, you must not do this on pain of death but there is wiggle room to plead your case if greater evil might occur by following the rule". Personally I'd keep "must" and let people sort it out for themselves, because you should never suggest the rules are still being followed if they're being broken. But policy speak dictates "should". In any case, we are dealing with a language (English, that is) which produced the rule "I before E except when it's not." I know, it used to be "...before C" but that's not actually true ("weird" isn't it). Crazy language :) h -- --- <http://www.200ok.com.au/> --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************