Re: Policy incorrect use of `must', `should', etc
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:09:18 +0100, Ian Jackson <email@example.com> said:
> Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Bug mass filling"):
>> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:18:20 +0100, Ian Jackson
>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
>> > There are two different and orthogonal properties of a policy
>> > requirement:
>> > 1. Is the requirement applicable in all cases, or are there
>> > sometimes overriding reasons to it another way, or
>> > exceptional cases where the requirement ought not to apply ?
>> Nothing you have said contradicts either what I or aba have said;
>> the devil lies in the details you have elided.
> I see from s1.1 of the current policy manual that it describes must
> and should as follows:
> This is quite different to the usual use of these terms, which is
> from BCP14 (RFC2119):
Yup, and we are well aware of the difference.
> Indeed, most of the policy manual was written with RFC2119
> terminology in mind. The 5th paragraph of policy should be replaced
> In this document, the words `must', `should' and `may', and the
> adjectives `required', `recommended', and `optional', are used in
> accordance with BCP14 (RFC2119).
Policy has not been written with that in mind since, oh, the
1998, so if this is to be done then policy has to be rewritten from
I think such an effort is ill adviced.
Work smarter, not harder, and be careful of your speling.
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C