Dave Pawson wrote:
> What to do about a clause such as
>
> 2.4.2 Base Settings
>
> The <config:config-item> element contains all base settings. The value
> of the setting is stored in the element.
>
> This is (barely) informative.
> No shall.
> No may
> Not marked as informative.
Would it be too much to assume that any clause that doesn't specify
"may" (that is, specifically tells us that there is a choice or "free
will" of some sort) - simply be considered obligatory? That way, we do
narrow the freedom of implementer, but in return we get much more (and
in much less time) interoperability.
