> I don't know offhand what RFC 2119 says on the matter, and I
> haven't got time to look, but any set of rules that includes
> the term "may not" is liable to be misinterpreted by half
> its audience. When I am reviewing specifications, "may not"
> always gets a thumbs down.
*sigh* I do wish people wouldn't review things without reading
them. I happen to agree with you about MAY NOT, but that's
what RFC 2119 says. The RFC is about 600 words long, BTW, and
here's a link: http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2119.txt .
> I don't much like "may" either. Everything is permitted
> unless the specification prohibits it, a sentence whose main
> verb is "may" therefore says nothing.
*Everything*? So if a specification for a C compiler doesn't
*say* that compiling a strictly conforming program does *not*
make demons fly out of your nose, then the compiler is allowed
to do that?
-- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn. You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn. Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)