You MAY NOT make RFC 2119/8174 jokes
13
Replies
4
Boosts
@cwebber This SHOULD have been an UDP joke but people MAY NOT get it 😅
@cwebber you COULD use RFC 6919 keywords
@cwebber you SHALL NOT stop me...
What about RFC 8675309 jokes?
There is a whole second joke in here but those who haven't had to suffer through spec writing MAY NOT get it
I MAY not have read the spec before responding. I SHOULD have. I MUST admit I have failed at this poor attempt at humor.
Though "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", and "SHOULD NOT" are valid to use in spec writing, "MAY" is used but "MAY NOT" is not, because "may not" in English is ambiguous. See how the two different uses in the first and second post in this thread differ; one forbids, the other says it's optional.
Dear F-ing God, I worked for a big bank and I worked my ass off removing all the mays, mights, sortas, and implicit bullshit from their network standards.
Not one engineer ever appreciated the disambiguation. They were pissed their ancient MS Word mail merge thingies all broke.
Style Manuals are the most important human writing,
Woe is us, amiright?
@cwebber so just to be clear, you are saying i'm not *required* to make fun of RFC 2119/8174?
@cwebber DO or DO NOT, there is no TRY
@sci_photos @cwebber MAY or SHOULD NOT, there is no MAY NOT
