- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 20:59:25 +0200
- 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