Scott Brim <scott dot brim at gmail dot com> wrote: > 2119 overrides anything you might think you know about what words > mean. and Dave Cridland <dave at cridland dot net> wrote: > If a document explicitly states that the term "RECOMMENDED" is to > be interpreted as in RFC 2119, then that really is the only > interpretation, and RFC 2119 does then become the only source of > consequence. This is beyond personal opinions. Documents that intend these magic words to have their RFC 2119 meanings include boilerplate text: "The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL', 'SHALL NOT', 'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'MAY', and 'OPTIONAL' in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119." If a document wants to impart different meaning to one or more of the words, wouldn't a simple list of the exceptions, immediately following the boilerplate, solve the problem? -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA http://ewellic.org | @DougEwell