At 06:03 PM 2002-08-20 +0200, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>I agree with the sentiment, but this isn't exactly the language that
>I'd use in a RFC. :-)
>
>I'd rather put something like:
>
>"""
>In particular, if nothing is explicitly specified, then that MUST be
>interpreted as equivalent to the following:
>
>List-ArchivePolicy: 1 (ask: permission from the list-owner is needed)
>List-GatewayPolicy: 1 (ask: permission from the list-owner is needed)
>List-RobotPolicy: 1 (ask: permission from the list-owner is needed)
>
>"""
>
>Are there any objections against this language?
I have a word choice issue..
>In particular, if nothing is explicitly specified, then the interpretation
>MUST be
>the following:
"then that" is not reasonable English, as there is no antecedent for that
in this case. Maybe the antecedent would become apparent if there were
more context, but sentences in RFCs tend to get misinterpreted if they
can't stand on their own.
--
"Forgive him, for he believes that the customs of his tribe are the laws of
nature!"
-- George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
Nick Simicich - njs@scifi.squawk.com
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
