Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 12 Nov 2006 at 12:41, Steve Summit
<scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote:
If I read, "You should avoid doing X", I
would assume the writer
meant, "you should generally not do X" or "you should do X only
under exceptional circumstances" or "you shouldn't do X unless
you know what you're doing". (I'd assume those interpretations
anyway, but I'd *especially* assume them in an environment that
includes WP:IAR.) If X really was forbidden or prohibited,
I would expect the policy to say, "you should not do X", or
"you must not do X", or "X is forbidden", or "X is
prohibited",
or "X is illegal".
The Internet RFCs have a very specifically defined set of terms for
use in such contexts; they define what SHOULD means versus MUST, and
similarly SHOULD NOT vs. MUST NOT. (The all-caps words are used to
emphasize that they have specific meanings when used in RFCs.)
Link please?
I've had this kind of distinction come up in other contexts too. The
conditional "should" tends to be on a similar plane with "avoid". I
have run into the argument when drafting by-aws for an arganization, but
then it has more to do with the difference between "shall" and "must".
The difference between these too can be more subtle. Conditional words
have more affinity to guidelines than rules.
Andrew's request for putting all this more "snappily" may be impossible
to achieve.
Ec