On Wed, 7 May 2008, Zefram wrote: > Kerim Aydin wrote: >> Anything particularly evil about this? > > Not directly so, but it would encourage bad drafting. We already have a > fair bit of trouble with people not thinking through the CAN and the SHALL > as distinct items, and we hardly ever want them to have the same extent.
I think there are several places in the ruleset we want them, and this came up because I wanted to add one. Perhaps if I did the same while also replacing all of those instances. I take your point on the timing ambiguity. -Goethe
