Re: Replacing ‘may not’ and ‘shall not’ by ‘must not‘ ?
Le Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:47:41AM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit :
> Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
>
> > I think it would be lovely to just use RFC 2119 language or a close
> > adaptation thereof.
>
> +1
>
> > Doing the conversion in all of Policy would be a ton of work, though.
>
> It would be an excellent distraction from more glamorous work :-)
Le Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 01:33:16AM +0100, Julian Gilbey a écrit :
>
> When I was on the policy team, I strongly advocated this and offered
> to do the work. It was not taken up at the time, but I am still
> strongly in favour of such a move: many people reading Debian Policy
> will be familiar with RFCs and their precise use of the RFC 2119
> terms; having Debian Policy following the same terminology (ideally
> also capitalised in the same way) would be fantastic.
Dear all,
I also like the idea very much.
I expect the bottleneck to be the peer-reviewing of the changes. How shall we
proceed ? One bug per chapter ? I volunteer for Chapter 5, on which I worked
previsouly.
Chapter 1 is where the explanations will go. Perhaps Ben or Julian can do that
one ?
While we are at it, I also would like to recommend that in the source SGML
document, we try to keep negations (MUST NOT, SHOULD NOT) on the same lines,
to facilitate text searchs. Maybe this can be documented as a comment in the
source or plainly somewhere in Chapter 1.
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Reply to: