Post History
Although the ISO may favor keeping "shall," I agree with PlainLanguage for this one: https://plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/conversational/shall-and-must/ Use “must” not “shall” to impose require...
Answer
#4: Attribution notice removed
by
System
·
2020-02-10T14:22:53Z (over 4 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/43600 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#3: Attribution notice added
by
System
·
2019-12-08T02:32:38Z (almost 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/43600 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#2: Initial revision
Although the ISO may favor keeping "shall," I agree with PlainLanguage for this one:[https://plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/conversational/shall-and-must/](https://plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/conversational/shall-and-must/) > Use “must” not “shall” to impose requirements. “Shall” is ambiguous, and rarely occurs in everyday conversation. The legal community is moving to a strong preference for “must” as the clearest way to express a requirement or obligation. I favor _must_ for requirements, _should_ for a recommendation, _could_ for an option, and _will_ for statements of fact. We _must_ set our clocks forward for Daylight Savings. You _should_ plan your sleep schedule to account for this. You _could_ move to a state that stays with one time-scheme all year. Regardless, the earth _will_ orbit the sun just as it always has.
#1: Imported from external source
by
System
·
2019-03-15T19:42:07Z (over 5 years ago)
Original score: 0