Re: The GUI shall do...

[Chris Morton <salt -dot- morton -at- gmail -dot- com>]

We are not writing RFCs. Our SOPs are for internal use only, but we must be
able to demonstrate to auditors that 1) we have these docs and 2) each
employee has trained on his/her required subset each year. No auditor
actually reads our SOPs for content.

Instead, I'm calling on our engineers to please write their spec docs using
present tense and to avoid *shall* at all costs!

Formal filings, such as a 510(k) for the FDA, may be different. I doubt it,
though. That's why I'm interested in dredging up that prior thread, because
I do recall once poster commenting on the "requirement" falling out of
favor with the gubmint, too.

> Chris

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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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


Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-  Visit
http://www.techwhirl.com/email-discussion-groups/ for more resources and info.

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