TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Does anyone else find it ironic that the same group that whines about word transformation also objects to the orthodox use of "shall"?
-----Original Message-----
From: techwr-l-bounces+lporrello=illumina -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com [mailto:techwr-l-bounces+lporrello=illumina -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com] On Behalf Of Combs, Richard
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 9:52 AM
To: salt -dot- morton -at- gmail -dot- com; techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Subject: RE: The GUI shall do...
Chris Morton wrote:
> You're preaching to the choir, Anne. I'm looking for the thread
> regarding this, especially as it pertains to the government backing
> away from this anachronistic standard.
>
> Thx
>
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Anne Robotti <arobotti -at- gmail -dot- com> wrote:
>
> > I personally would fight to the death if anyone tried to make me use it.
> >
> > But that's just me....
> >
> > Anne
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Chris Morton <salt -dot- morton -at- gmail -dot- com>wrote:
> >
> >> Does anyone remember a thread here sometime last year about the use
> >> of "shall" in documentation (e.g., software GUI specs)?
Audience and purpose, folks ... audience and purpose. For most audiences and purposes, I agree. But for a formal requirements document, you should adhere to the key word usage specs laid out in RFC 2119 (www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt). It's not an anachronistic standard, it's a means of avoiding ambiguity.
That said, I'd use MUST and MUST NOT in preference to SHALL and SHALL NOT whenever possible.
Richard G. Combs
Senior Technical Writer
Polycom, Inc.
richardDOTcombs AT polycomDOTcom
303-223-5111
------
rgcombs AT gmailDOTcom
303-903-6372
------
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
See what's new in Doc-To-Help 2012 in a free webcast:
Read all about them: http://bit.ly/C1-webcast ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as lporrello -at- illumina -dot- com -dot-
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our online magazine at http://techwhirl.com
Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
See what's new in Doc-To-Help 2012 in a free webcast:
Read all about them: http://bit.ly/C1-webcast
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
