Subject:
|
Re: Y??? 'Cause I'm asking!!!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Jan 2006 21:15:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
755 times
|
| |
|
|
Calum Tsang wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Derek Raycraft wrote:
>
>
> > I believe the intent is 'should' means 'must' otherwise the rule is
> > meaningless and could be completely ignored.
>
>
> I put in a fair amount of effort differentiating out should versus must. Any
> should is really a recommendation. Chris was super anal about how he didn't
> want to enforce certain items on people. Uniform colour and solid bricks was
> one of them.
>
> So hence, it's in there now as a "should" versus a must.
I thought that's why we included a guidelines sections. So we could
differentiate between what is required and what isn't. This approach is
more confusing, not less.
Derek
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Y??? 'Cause I'm asking!!!
|
| (...) I put in a fair amount of effort differentiating out should versus must. Any should is really a recommendation. Chris was super anal about how he didn't want to enforce certain items on people. Uniform colour and solid bricks was one of them. (...) (18 years ago, 13-Jan-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
