Levi wrote:
Just noticed that Rule 2160 uses POSSIBLE.
If it's the reverse of IMPOSSIBLE, it would be defined the same as CAN.
But then, in Rule 2160, I'm not sure POSSIBLE is the right term?
There was a proposal to change it to LEGAL, whereupon it was pointed
out that many actions are LEGAL
Levi Stephen wrote:
Yes, good. My "clarify MMI" proposal had:
* MAY : it is PERMITTED for to .
* PERMITTED, LEGAL: it is not MANDATORY to not perform the
action.
* MANDATORY, REQUIRED: there is an obligation to perform the
action.
-zefram
Just notic
Yes, good. My "clarify MMI" proposal had:
* MAY : it is PERMITTED for to .
* PERMITTED, LEGAL: it is not MANDATORY to not perform the
action.
* MANDATORY, REQUIRED: there is an obligation to perform the
action.
-zefram
I sumbitted a proposal with the r
Levi Stephen wrote:
>Sorry, should have said worded, rather than defined. It's good that they
>are equivalent ;)
OK. I agree with you that the latter is a superior wording, because it's
more general when considering non-rule entities: I think a contract,
for example, should be able to use the MM
Zefram wrote:
Levi Stephen wrote:
MAY: Performing the described action does not violate the rule in
question
But, MAY is probably better defined along the lines of
MAY: Performing the described action is permitted
These two definitions appear equivalent to me. That's what
Levi Stephen wrote:
>MAY: Performing the described action does not violate the rule in
>question
>
>But, MAY is probably better defined along the lines of
>
>MAY: Performing the described action is permitted
These two definitions appear equivalent to me. That's what "permitted"
means
Zefram wrote:
Levi Stephen wrote:
4. MAY, CAN: The described action is permitted but a failure to
perform
the described action does not violate the rule in question.
These should not be synonymous. "CAN" should be concerned with
possibility, and "MAY" with permission.
Ye
Levi Stephen wrote:
> 4. MAY, CAN: The described action is permitted but a failure to
> perform
> the described action does not violate the rule in question.
These should not be synonymous. "CAN" should be concerned with
possibility, and "MAY" with permission. Re failure to p
On 8/21/07, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>4. MAY, CAN: The described action is permitted but a failure to perform
in before Zefram's reply
In Rule 2152 replace the following text:
4. CAN X ONLY IF Y: Equivalent to "CANNOT X unless Y". Similar
for (MUST, MAY, SHALL, SHOULD) X ONLY IF Y.
with
4. MAY, CAN: The described action is permitted but a failure to perform
the described action does not viola
10 matches
Mail list logo
