On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Crispin Cowan <crispin@microsoft.com> wrote: > Sorry for replying to myself, after actually reading Mike’s post … I was > always taught that technical writing never says “should”. Does “should” > mean “I don’t have to?” Leads to ambiguity. So a technical spec says either > “must” (required) or “may” (optional). A really strongly recommended “may” > is followed by the value prop of what you get if you follow the “may” > guidance. > > > > It also really helps thinking in technical writing. If you go through your > own doc and search for “should”, first you are really annoyed at having to > choose “must” or “may”, and then you realize that the reason you are > annoyed is because this is forcing you to resolve your own unaddressed > questions. > We generally use a special meaning of "should" according to the definition in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119, which basically boils down to "Do X, please. If you choose not do to X, have a really good reason.". It's more than "may" (which is truly optional), but not a "must" (which is truly a requirement). Sometimes what we really mean is buried somewhere in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6919, of course... :) -- Mike West <mkwst@google.com>, @mikewest Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München, Germany, Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg, Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine Elizabeth Flores (Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to emails. Bleh.) >Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2015 19:21:07 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:54:11 UTC