On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 00:47:08 +0100, Mauro Condarelli <mc5...@mclink.it> wrote:
> Il 21/11/2015 23:45, Lisi Reisz ha scritto: > > On Saturday 21 November 2015 17:36:46 Mauro Condarelli wrote: > >> Unfortunately English is not my mother language, so my command of the > >> language is lacking (so say the least), please bear with me. > > Which might limit your ability to comment on the finer nuances of the > > meaning of the language. > > > > Please don't take that as a criticism - my knowledge of Italian is only just > > the right side of non-existent - but you aren't in a good position to > > comment. > That, may be the case, but I feel like I can distinguish between who is > really trying to force someone else to behave in a well defined way and who > isn't. Here we are not discussing "nuances", but "annoyance". BTW this is, > again, a lawyer trick: divert the attention from the main subject to the > irrelevant to score a point. > > Anyway (back on subject): > Since everybody here is, more or less, in the computer trade: why don't we > stick to RFC2119? (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt) It seems pretty > explicit on what the meaning of "should" should be. (double "should" very > intentional) lol
