W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2013

NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to"

From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 11:18:41 -0400
Message-ID: <51F7D951.3050204@bbs.darktech.org>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Hi,

     According to 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013JulSep/0183.html:

The WG practice has been to replace overly restrictive
SHOULD with a phrase that lacks the normative strictness while still
conveying some importance for the instruction - "ought to".

     I'd like to propose explicitly defining "ought to" alongside 
"SHOULD" because it is not clear what the practical difference is 
between the two. "ought to" is actually a synonym of "should", see 
http://thesaurus.com/browse/ought+to and http://thesaurus.com/browse/should

     It seems that you meant for "ought to" to lie somewhere between 
"MAY" and "SHOULD" but I don't think you're gaining anything by not 
defining exactly what it means, especially for people whose English is 
not their first language.

     Please consider:

 1. Replacing "ought to" with a word that is not a synonym of SHOULD,
    unless you mean SHOULD in which case you should use SHOULD :)
 2. Defining "ought to" explicitly at the top of the document.

Thank you :)
Gili
Received on Tuesday, 30 July 2013 15:19:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:14 UTC