Hi Martin, OK, I can use RFC style language instead of my "must" and "should" definitions if that helps us communicate better. I'm not up to full RFC format but I can try to get as close as needed.
I don't see "must/should/nice to have" defined in this link: ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2223.txt Did I miss it or do you have a link the definitions you want to use handy? Thanks, Greg S Martin Langhoff wrote: > n Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 2:16 AM, Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> First Michael: >> > This feels very similar to an RFC. >> >> GS - Its not meant to be an RFC > > I think Michael was just suggesting a time-saving device: you defined > "should", "must", etc, and there's a common standard for that kind of > verbiage that is used in RFCs. I think it's a good timesaver - all > technical ppl around here know about the RFC convention :-) > >> > We're actually on the trailing edge of collaboration technology > > And I think you're *both* exaggerating, and being leading edge doesn't > matter that much. We want collab that is useful in education. We are > trailing our own expectations, and we'd like to do better. > > cheers, > > > m _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
