Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 2012-05-16 18:53, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 5/16/12 9:58 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:

...
>> I'll note that  in my normal reading mode I  do not distinguish case,
>> but even so I find the ability to use may and should in RFC text without
>> the 2119 implications valuable.

Agreed. But as a gen-art reviewer, I have several times had to ask
authors whether a particular lower case "may" was intended to be normative
or normal English. Authors must be fastidious about this.

> Your mileage may (or is that MAY?) vary, but to forestall confusion I've
> settled on the practice of using "can" and "might" instead of lowercase
> "may", "ought to" and "is suggested to" instead of lowercase "should",
> and "needs to" or "has to" instead of lowercase "must" (etc.). I'm not
> saying that anyone else SHOULD or MUST use that convention, but you
> might consider it in your own spec-writing.

It is indeed very important not to use "may" when it's ambiguous.
"It may rain today" is fine; "you may leave now" is not (I can think
of three different meanings). In RFC2119-talk, "you MAY leave now"
only has one meaning.

   Brian