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

Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to"

From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 12:12:44 -0400
Message-ID: <51F7E5FC.2050609@bbs.darktech.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 30/07/2013 12:08 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2013-07-30 18:03, cowwoc wrote:
>> Julian,
>>
>>      I understand the "legal" difference between the two but your reply
>> didn't actually explain the benefit of using "ought to" instead of
>> "SHOULD" (especially in light of the fact that the former causes
>> confusion).
>
> The reason we don't use SHOULD is that BCP14 keywords SHOULD be used 
> sparingly:
>
>    Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care
>    and sparingly.  In particular, they MUST only be used where it is
>    actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has
>    potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For
>    example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method
>    on implementors where the method is not required for
>    interoperability.
>
> Best regards, Julian

     I understand this line of reasoning for MUST, but I fail to see the 
logic for SHOULD which by definition (being optional) does not "impose a 
particular method on implementers where the method is not required for 
interoperability".

     Are you looking for a way to say "this can be implemented one many 
ways, one approach is to X"?

Gili
Received on Tuesday, 30 July 2013 16:13:20 UTC

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