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 20:47:42 +0200
Message-ID: <51F80A4E.9040407@gmx.de>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
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).
>
> Gili

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
Received on Tuesday, 30 July 2013 18:48:12 UTC

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