* Frank Küster ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061025 09:49]: > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:15:55 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > said: > >> Is the word "generally" here an error? I read this as implying the > >> normal meaning of "should" -- that not everything which violates a > >> "should" mandate is a bug. > > > > I am of the opinion that it is. We can replace non-buggy > > instances of should by 'ought to be', if needed. > > But please don't forget a "legal definition" of those terms. For me, as > a non-native speaker, I have no idea whether "ought to" is weaker or > stronger than "should", or just something different (and what).
I think we should (hehe) use the same definitions as the RFCs - or is this text non-DFSG-free? Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
