No subject

No subject

No subject

Tue Jun 3 09:52:56 EDT 1997

Hi Tom,

Note that the POSIX.2 usage of 'need not' as the inverse of 'may'
is now ubiquitous in new ISO and IEEE communications standards.

- Ira McDonald (outside consultant at Xerox)
  High North Inc

Return-Path: <jmp-owner at>
Received: from by (4.1/XeroxClient-1.1)
	id AA24966; Mon, 2 Jun 97 20:30:45 EDT
Received: from by (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA07689; Mon, 2 Jun 97 20:27:57 EDT
Received: from ([]) by with SMTP id <14603(4)>; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 17:28:10 PDT
Received: from localhost (daemon at localhost) by (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA18480 for <imcdonal at>; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 20:24:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by (bulk_mailer v1.5); Mon, 2 Jun 1997 20:22:53 -0400
Received: (from daemon at localhost) by (8.7.5/8.7.3) id UAA18363 for jmp-outgoing; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 20:22:16 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <9706030022.AA01484 at>
X-Sender: hastings at zazen
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 17:20:07 PDT
To: ipp at, jmp at
From: Tom Hastings <hastings at>
Subject: JMP> Re: "NEED NOT" is a better negative than "MAY NOT" - from
  POSIX [and capatalizing conformance words]
Sender: jmp-owner at
Status: R

Scott Bradner replied to my query, but I missed it, on NEED NOT and 
capitalizing the conformance words.


>Return-Path: <sob at>
>Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 04:27:22 PDT
>From: Scott Bradner <sob at>
>To: hastings at
>Subject: Re: "NEED NOT" is a better negative than "MAY NOT" - from POSIX
>	"need not" would be a good addition.  If this rfc comes
>up for revision I will add that.
>> Also, are you recommending that we capitalize the words?
>there was quite a bit of argument on that.  I think it helps the reader
>quite a bit but some other people felt that we did not even
>need the rfc since the words should mean what they mean.  The compromise
>was to just say that the "may" be capitalized.

More information about the Ipp mailing list