[wp-hackers] beating a dead horse

[Carthik Sharma]

Hey Alex,

It says it is for IETF documents marked with the paragraph
<quote>
This document defines these words as they should be
   interpreted in IETF documents.  Authors who follow these guidelines
   should incorporate this phrase near the beginning of their document:

      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.
</quote>

I am not trying to be argumentative, just saying that these terms may
not be applicable to the GPL as such.

Any word on the WordPress GPL issue? That discussion seems to have
died, under rather unfortunate circumstances.

I thought Mike's comments made sense, and that we should conform to
specifications, just like the product conforms to standards.

Regards,
Carthik.

On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 22:28:39 -0600, Alex King <alex at alexking.org> wrote:
> I'm *not* intending to open up old arguments, but tripped on this in
> Pilgrims blogmarks:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> 
> :)
> 
> --Alex
> 
> http://www.alexking.org/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> hackers mailing list
> hackers at wordpress.org
> http://wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/hackers_wordpress.org
> 


-- 
When nothing is done, nothing is left undone -- 老子 Lǎozi

University of Central Florida
Homepage: http://carthik.net