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

Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to"

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 17:29:57 +0200
Message-ID: <51F7DBF5.3030403@gmx.de>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2013-07-30 17:18, cowwoc wrote:
> 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

The point being that "ought to" being just prose, while "SHOULD" being 
defined by RFC 2119. Both of them having roughly the same meaning in 
English sounds absolutely right to me.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 30 July 2013 15:30:35 UTC

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