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 20:59:25 +0200
Message-ID: <51F80D0D.9000004@gmx.de>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2013-07-30 18:12, cowwoc wrote:
>      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

No, SHOULD is not "optional". MAY is optional.

> 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"?

No, "ought to" means "should", we just want to avoid the confusion with 
a BCP14-SHOULD.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 30 July 2013 18:59:57 UTC

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