I've written text such as "For clients, support for X is REQUIRED."
So have I, but then I rewrote it as "Clients MUST support X."
Really, John. That's unfortunate.
The first form is so much more... literary.
Besides that, it really is much better to have multiple ways to formulate the
same semantic. We like doing it in protocols, so why shouldn't we enjoy
doing it in our specifications?
Now that you point it out, of course.
With the new UTF-8 friendly XML formats approved, it occurs to me that
this is the ideal time to add 必 and 能 along with MUST and MAY.
Note that 必 and 能 only have the 2119bis meaning when written in
simplified characters, not when written in traditional characters.
Multiculturally,
John