Subject: Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD

From: Barry Finkel <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 15:11:21 -0500 (CDT)

Keith Moore wrote:

> [A] An implementation that does not adhere to each of the "MUST" and "MUST 
>NOT" requirements is not considered to be conforming to this specification.

Is there a semantic difference between

    "is not considered to be conforming"
vs.
    "is considered not to be conforming" 
vs.
    "is considered to be non-conforming"

I am not sure.  To me, the latter two seem stronger.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Barry S. Finkel
Electronics and Computing Technologies Division
Argonne National Laboratory          Phone:    +1 (630) 252-7277
9700 South Cass Avenue               Facsimile:+1 (630) 252-9689
Building 221, Room B236              Internet: [email-masked]
Argonne, IL   60439-4844             IBMMAIL:  I1004994

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:20:37 -0400

> I am not sure.  To me, the latter two seem stronger.

yes, there probably is a difference.  to use more blunt language,
to me it seems safer to say "implementation X does not meet our 
definition of 'good'" than to say "implementation X is 'bad'".

but we could probably make a case for the latter.

Keith