No you're missing my point.
These words already have definitions. You can look them up in a dictionary. Or almost all speakers know them anyway.
Why do we need an RFC, and to write them in capital letters?
What does the RFC add to anything? If you removed the capitalisation and the reference to the RFC then your text means exactly the same thing, as the words already had the same meanings.
> English is ambiguous
Well then how does the RFC solve that problem? Their definitions of these terms are using other English words which are also ambiguous.
> I for one, can never remember whether SHALL is mandatory or not
What do you think 'shall' means in a normal conversation? How could it mean anything except mandatory? In what normal English context does 'shall' mean optional?
If a normal person tells you that you must submit your expenses before the end of the month do you get confused about whether it's required or not? If they write it in capitals and refer you to the RFC do you suddenly understand now?
These words already have definitions. You can look them up in a dictionary. Or almost all speakers know them anyway.
Why do we need an RFC, and to write them in capital letters?
What does the RFC add to anything? If you removed the capitalisation and the reference to the RFC then your text means exactly the same thing, as the words already had the same meanings.
> English is ambiguous
Well then how does the RFC solve that problem? Their definitions of these terms are using other English words which are also ambiguous.
> I for one, can never remember whether SHALL is mandatory or not
What do you think 'shall' means in a normal conversation? How could it mean anything except mandatory? In what normal English context does 'shall' mean optional?
If a normal person tells you that you must submit your expenses before the end of the month do you get confused about whether it's required or not? If they write it in capitals and refer you to the RFC do you suddenly understand now?