I don't think it is necessary to change, but nor do I object to the change. There are three places to changes, not two. 9.2.2.2 also has the same language. In any case, all three places should use the same language. Shalom > Thanks, Gord. I came to the same conclusion for the same reasoning. > > If some disagrees, please post your dissent soon. Otherwise > I will publish a proposal to this effect for inclusion in the > next e-mail ballot. > > >Given the definition of "should" in 1.5, I agree the "should" is > >appropriate in the contexts indicated by 1828. If someone wants to > >make a proposal, I wouldn't object. I'm not going to offer to write > >the proposal however. > >> > >> Would SV-BC members please comment on this issue? > >> > >> I can see 2 outcomes: > >> > >> resolve with no action > >> create proposal to change 'may' or 'can' to 'should' for always_* --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Israel (74) Limited This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Tue Feb 5 05:34:13 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 05 2008 - 05:34:49 PST