Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: Motion P1788/M0036.03:Flavors Vote NO



For the benefit of those who are not native English speakers, SHALL means that for only packages that implement set operations satisfy our standard, but what does SHOULD mean and how it is different? 

P.S. This reminds me of discussion in the US about Second Amendment where two sides are absolutely sure about the meaning but this meaning is exactly opposite :-( 

I know should and shall differ in some bureaucratic documents

-----Original Message-----
From: stds-1788@xxxxxxxx [mailto:stds-1788@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dominique Lohez
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 9:29 AM
To: Corliss, George; stds-1788
Subject: Motion P1788/M0036.03:Flavors Vote NO

My vote is  NO

I would vote if the following change were done

1)   In terminology 
      the sentence
          

, and any related kind that the modal subgroup may wish to specify. 





2)  the cause 2  before the add is replaced by

All the operations defined on "classical" intervals should be 
appropriately extended to  modal intervals

Other flavors  are discussed in a future motion.
The add is kept .

The clause 5 is removed



In clause 7 the sentence

An implementation shall support at least one flavor. It 
shall document which flavors it supports. 

is replaced by

An implementation SHALL support set based intervals



An implementation SHOULD support modal intervals



The rationale will be detailed on separate mail.


Dominique



-- 
Dr Dominique LOHEZ
ISEN
41, Bd Vauban
F59046 LILLE
France

Phone : +33 (0)3 20 30 40 71
Email: Dominique.Lohez@xxxxxxx