[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: First draft of review of policy must usage

On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 01:03:11AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> @@ -113,36 +113,6 @@
>  	  either. Please see <ref id="pkg-scope"> for more information.
>  	</p>
> -	<p>
> -	  In the normative part of this manual,
> -	  the words <em>must</em>, <em>should</em> and
> -	  <em>may</em>, and the adjectives <em>required</em>,
> -	  <em>recommended</em> and <em>optional</em>, are used to
> -	  distinguish the significance of the various guidelines in
> -	  this policy document. Packages that do not conform to the
> -	  guidelines denoted by <em>must</em> (or <em>required</em>)
> -	  will generally not be considered acceptable for the Debian
> -	  distribution. Non-conformance with guidelines denoted by
> -	  <em>should</em> (or <em>recommended</em>) will generally be
> -	  considered a bug, but will not necessarily render a package
> -	  unsuitable for distribution. Guidelines denoted by
> -	  <em>may</em> (or <em>optional</em>) are truly optional and
> -	  adherence is left to the maintainer's discretion.
> -	</p>

I would suggest we use uppercase[1] to denote must, should, may and
required, recommended, optional to denote the normative usage. This
way we could still use the lowercase word for non-normative usage.
at the very least, this would reduce the size of the proposed diff.

[1] or any typographical distinction that can represented in the 
plain text version.

Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large blue swirl here. 

Reply to: