From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk  Thu Jul 24 19:21:07 2003
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) id h6OHL7P9021306
	for sc22wg5-domo; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 19:21:07 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk)
X-Authentication-Warning: ptah.dkuug.dk: majordom set sender to owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk using -f
Received: from srv1.pamela.getrealnet.net (pamela.getrealnet.net [212.90.32.71])
	by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h6OHKQEc021295
	for <sc22wg5@dkuug.dk>; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 19:21:03 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from dmuxworthy1@justdial.it)
Received: from [212.90.36.124] (helo=David-Muxworthys-Computer.local.)
	by srv1.pamela.getrealnet.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #3)
	id 19fjn1-0000TN-00
	for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:22:03 +0100
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:20:33 +0100
Reply-To: d.muxworthy@bcs.org.uk
Subject: Fwd: (SC22WG5.2893) Miscellaneous minor edits to 03-007
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v543)
From: David Muxworthy <dmuxworthy1@justdial.it>
To: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <21AF5301-BDFB-11D7-9EEE-000393AB9EC0@justdial.it>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.543)
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk
Precedence: bulk

Malcolm has commented on message 2893 as follows.  I will put a revised 
version of my comments into new paper N1547, after any further comments 
have come in - deadline 08:00 BST Friday (=midnight PST Thursday).
David

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Malcolm Cohen <malcolm@nag.co.uk>
> Date: Thu Jul 24, 2003  17:59:30 Europe/London
> To: d.muxworthy@bcs.org.uk
> Cc: Richard Maine <Richard.Maine@nasa.gov>
> Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.2893) Miscellaneous minor edits to 03-007
>
> Hi David,
>
> I've given up trying to post to the WG5 list since my posts simply 
> never
> arrive.  Can you post it for me please?  BTW, I've cc'ed Richard since 
> he
> will doubtless wish to comment (unless I've covered all his points and 
> he
> agrees with my analysis - unlikely!).
>
>> 1.  May not
>> One of the BSI style rules is not to allow "may not" as it could mean
>> "must (or can) not" on the one hand and "it might not happen that" on
>> the other.
>
> I agree completely.  Indeed, so does my copy of the ISO directives,
> which explicitly prohibit the use of "may not" to express a 
> prohibition.
> The other common(?) usage of "may not" means "is permitted not to", as
> in "the chair may not accept the gag motion", which even further 
> encourages
> us not to use this construction!
>
>> The following edits would remove the phrase.
>>
>> 34:13    "may not" -> "must not"
>
> ISO also prohibit the use of "must" to express requirements of the 
> standard.
>   -> "shall not"
>
>> 41:0+5   "may not" -> "might not"
>> 59:8+3   "may not" -> "must not"
>
>   -> "shall not"
>
> Actually, this is not a requirement, but a statement of possibility 
> (viz
> that it is not possible); so this really ought to be
>   -> "cannot"
>
>> 176:4+2  "may not" -> "can not"
>
> OK, but the ISO directives use "cannot", so I would prefer that 
> spelling.
>
>> 176:37   "may or may not" -> "might or might not"
>> 194:12+3 "may not" -> "must not"
>
>   -> "shall not"
>
>> 245:5+3  "may not" -> "must not"
>
>   -> "shall not"
>
> Cheers,
> -- 
> ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K.
>                            (malcolm@nag.co.uk)
>