Re: First draft of review of policy must usage
On 10/25/06, Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
I have replaced some uses of the word must when it was
intended to be non-normative with alternate and equivalent wording,
which makes it easier to grep for "must". This still needs to be
done for should (which I often replace with 'ought to').
It would be nice to have a comment, footnote or similar thing that
explains the differences between all these indicators:
Something like this:
* must / have to: you have to do this, no matter what.
* should / ought to: it's a very good idea to do this, but in some
special cases you might have a reason not to.
I don't know if these are the meanings intended. All these verbs
sound the same to me, but it seems they are intended to have different
meanings, and I think it's better to make things as clear as possible.