3 ms·

> Well then how does the RFC solve that problem? Their definitions of these terms are using other English words which are also ambiguous. The same way that a d

> Well then how does the RFC solve that problem? Their definitions of these terms are using other English words which are also ambiguous. The same way that a dictionary definition clarifies the meaning of a single English word. By using complete sentences to rule out grey areas. I see no point in furthering this discussion. Your defeatist assertions like the above "there's no possible way to disambiguate English", your refusal to admit that apparent synonyms such as "must" and "shall" might not be perfect synonyms to people other than yourself, and your repeated sarcasm and snark, suggest to me that you do not see the opposite viewpoint as legitimate, and therefore are not amenable to changing your viewpoint.

chrisseaton 7y ago
> The same way that a dictionary definition clarifies the meaning of a single English word. Right, so use the dictionary we already have! Why do we need the RFC? > "there's no possible way to disambiguate English" This quote isn't from me. I didn't say that - I don't know where you've got it from. > your repeated sarcasm and snark Sarcasm and snark? I don't use those rhetorical devices if I can avoid it. I don't think I've used them in this thread at all! I don't know where you've got the idea that I'm not arguing seriously from. I'm sorry I gave that impression. My legitimate argument is that nobody is honestly confused by words like must - nobody. The RFC is over-the-top formalism where it's not needed.
- charlieda 7y ago
  The RFC is far more useful in dealing with the word "should". It is used in the standards to mean something that is optional but strongly recommended ("there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item"), whereas in english the first definition that comes up is "used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness". To me it seems that there could easily be confusion between these two interpretations.

chrisseaton 7y ago

> The same way that a dictionary definition clarifies the meaning of a single English word. Right, so use the dictionary we already have! Why do we need the RFC? > "there's no possible way to disambiguate English" This quote isn't from me. I didn't say that - I don't know where you've got it from. > your repeated sarcasm and snark Sarcasm and snark? I don't use those rhetorical devices if I can avoid it. I don't think I've used them in this thread at all! I don't know where you've got the idea that I'm not arguing seriously from. I'm sorry I gave that impression. My legitimate argument is that nobody is honestly confused by words like must - nobody. The RFC is over-the-top formalism where it's not needed.

charlieda 7y ago
The RFC is far more useful in dealing with the word "should". It is used in the standards to mean something that is optional but strongly recommended ("there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item"), whereas in english the first definition that comes up is "used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness". To me it seems that there could easily be confusion between these two interpretations.