RE: [office-comment] Naughty words and phrases (ODF all versions)

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>]

Thank you Alex,

I am wondering whether, in some contexts, whether the proper observation is
to use can and cannot as an expression of possibility rather than as a
prescription.  This came to mind with regard to possible restatement of
"[c]ustom
metadata elements may only occur in OpenDocument extended documents" (in
which it would be a note if can only were used, I suppose).  Since the
statement is true by definition of the document targets, it struck me that
"can only" would serve.

I am not suggesting this remedies the case you identified.  I am asking if
you can clarify any considerations that you give to using can/cannot along
with shall/shall not, should/should not, and may/need not.

 - Dennis

This message is my personal observation and any similarity to an official
position of the ODF TC or of OASIS is purely coincidental.  Were there such
an official position, there'd be provision of a link to the official minutes
or other approved document where the official position is expressed.

Dennis E. Hamilton
------------------
NuovoDoc: Design for Document System Interoperability 
mailto:Dennis.Hamilton@acm.org | gsm:+1-206.779.9430 
http://NuovoDoc.com http://ODMA.info/dev/ http://nfoWorks.org   

-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Brown [mailto:alexb@griffinbrown.co.uk] 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-comment/200903/msg00105.html
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 04:17
To: office-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [office-comment] Naughty words and phrases (ODF all versions)

Dear all,

The following word and phrases are used in the normative text of ODF.
They need to be removed and the surrounding text re-worked:

[ ... ]

* "may only" instead of "shall only", "shall", etc. (e.g. "[c]ustom
metadata elements may only occur in OpenDocument extended documents" p.
95)

[ ... ]