Re: Must and should again
On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 02:44:26PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> I thought we were using RFC definitions of must and should, and thus 'may'
You're not the only one who thought that, but we're not :)
Paragraph 1.1 describes them.
must = have to do this, release critical bug if not
should = have to do this, normal bug if not
may = really optional
> Must == have to do this
> Should == we recommend you do this
> May == we think it is a good idea, but is not always possible/sane/etc
These aren't the RFC definitions though. MAY simply means it's
optional, it doesn't have to be a good idea. And SHOULD is stronger
than a recommendation, it means you have to do this unless there's
a good reason not to.