Note that the POSIX.2 usage of 'need not' as the inverse of 'may'
is now ubiquitous in new ISO and IEEE communications standards.
Cheers,
- Ira McDonald (outside consultant at Xerox)
High North Inc
Return-Path: <jmp-owner@pwg.org>
Received: from zombi.eso.mc.xerox.com by snorkel.eso.mc.xerox.com (4.1/XeroxClient-1.1)
id AA24966; Mon, 2 Jun 97 20:30:45 EDT
Received: from alpha.xerox.com by zombi.eso.mc.xerox.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA07689; Mon, 2 Jun 97 20:27:57 EDT
Received: from lists.underscore.com ([199.125.85.30]) by alpha.xerox.com with SMTP id <14603(4)>; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 17:28:10 PDT
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by lists.underscore.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA18480 for <imcdonal@eso.mc.xerox.com>; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 20:24:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Mon, 2 Jun 1997 20:22:53 -0400
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by lists.underscore.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id UAA18363 for jmp-outgoing; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 20:22:16 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <9706030022.AA01484@zazen.cp10.es.xerox.com>
X-Sender: hastings@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@pwg.org, jmp@pwg.org
From: Tom Hastings <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com>
Subject: JMP> Re: "NEED NOT" is a better negative than "MAY NOT" - from
POSIX [and capatalizing conformance words]
Sender: jmp-owner@pwg.org
Status: R
Scott Bradner replied to my query, but I missed it, on NEED NOT and
capitalizing the conformance words.
Tom
>Return-Path: <sob@newdev.harvard.edu>
>Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 04:27:22 PDT
>From: Scott Bradner <sob@newdev.harvard.edu>
>To: hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com
>Subject: Re: "NEED NOT" is a better negative than "MAY NOT" - from POSIX
>
>Tom,
> "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.
>
>Scott
>
>