> Well then how does the RFC solve that problem? Their definitions of these terms are using other English words which are also ambiguous.
The same way that a dictionary definition clarifies the meaning of a single English word. By using complete sentences to rule out grey areas.
I see no point in furthering this discussion. Your defeatist assertions like the above "there's no possible way to disambiguate English", your refusal to admit that apparent synonyms such as "must" and "shall" might not be perfect synonyms to people other than yourself, and your repeated sarcasm and snark, suggest to me that you do not see the opposite viewpoint as legitimate, and therefore are not amenable to changing your viewpoint.
The same way that a dictionary definition clarifies the meaning of a single English word. By using complete sentences to rule out grey areas.
I see no point in furthering this discussion. Your defeatist assertions like the above "there's no possible way to disambiguate English", your refusal to admit that apparent synonyms such as "must" and "shall" might not be perfect synonyms to people other than yourself, and your repeated sarcasm and snark, suggest to me that you do not see the opposite viewpoint as legitimate, and therefore are not amenable to changing your viewpoint.