One of the reasons this gets confusing is because RFC 2119 is somewhat unspecific on the topic. It says this in the abstract: "These words are often capitalized." but it doesn't say anything about distinguishing the lower case forms from the upper case forms. In my mind, this leads to confusion when a document mixes the two forms. Is a "should" the same as a 2119 "SHOULD"? *I* think the intent is that they are to be interpreted in the same way, but I know that others believe that protocol directives need to be capitalized. They're certainly more obvious if capitalized. I believe it best to use one form consistently, even if that means using synonyms in places. -Scott- > -----Original Message----- > From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:imcdonald at sharplabs.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 11:01 AM > To: 'Addison Phillips'; Randy Presuhn; ltru at ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Ltru] Confusing conformance language > > Hi Addison, > > Then I guess you have your AD's clear direction to content with. > I see nothing wrong with word substitution to avoid lowercase > must (almost never needed) or should (a mere convention to use > this verb). > > Cheers, > - Ira > > Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) > Blue Roof Music / High North Inc > PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 > phone: +1-906-494-2434 > email: imcdonald at sharplabs.com > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ltru-bounces at lists.ietf.org > > [mailto:ltru-bounces at lists.ietf.org]On > > Behalf Of Addison Phillips > > Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 9:42 AM > > To: Randy Presuhn; ltru at ietf.org > > Subject: RE: [Ltru] Confusing conformance language > > > > > > Some of the changes to normative language turn out to be > > natural (we really meant to be normative). Other changes (to > > avoid using the lowercase) required either an extensive > > rewrite or the need for word substitution (silly). > > > > Should and must were relatively easy. "May" is downright > > impossible, since that word can be used in more than one way... > > > > Addison > > > > Addison P. Phillips > > Globalization Architect, Quest Software > > Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group > > > > Internationalization is not a feature. > > It is an architecture. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: ltru-bounces at lists.ietf.org > > [mailto:ltru-bounces at lists.ietf.org] On > > > Behalf Of Randy Presuhn > > > Sent: 2005?6?8? 21:16 > > > To: ltru at ietf.org > > > Subject: Re: [Ltru] Confusing conformance language > > > > > > Hi - > > > > > > > From: "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald at sharplabs.com> > > > > To: <ltru at ietf.org> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 8:41 AM > > > > Subject: [Ltru] Confusing conformance language > > > ... > > > > Randy - do you have an opinion here? > > > ... > > > > > > In the spirit of "be liberal in what you accept", I don't mind a > > > lowercase "should" or "must" when they would the most natural > > > way of saying something. After all, the whole point of writing > > > the words as "SHOULD" and "MUST" is to distinguish them as > > > having their special standards-speak meanings. > > > > > > Having said that, I think that in keeping with the > > principle of being > > > "conservative in what you send", it is good to avoid the > lower-case > > > ones as much as is practical. > > > > > > Since our AD has a preference, and the editors are willing, the > > > choice is simple. :-) > > > > > > Randy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Ltru mailing list > > > Ltru at lists.ietf.org > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ltru mailing list > > Ltru at lists.ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ltru mailing list > Ltru at lists.ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru > _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.