Awesome. That's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks Tim.
---
C. Halstead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
SourceLabs - http://www.sourcelabs.com
Dependable Open Source Systems
- "Tim Funk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Typically its:
>
> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2119.html
>
> -Tim
>
> C. Halstea
Typically its:
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2119.html
-Tim
C. Halstead wrote:
Hi,
Just a quick clarification question, and sorry if it's a basic one. When
interpreting various spec documents is the qualifier 'should' always taken to
indicate that something is optional?
Two cases in point:
Hi,
Just a quick clarification question, and sorry if it's a basic one. When
interpreting various spec documents is the qualifier 'should' always taken to
indicate that something is optional?
Two cases in point:
Bug 41718 was marked as an enhancement request with the explanation of "should
=
