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 16:08:20 -0400
Message-ID: <51F81D34.4050700@bbs.darktech.org>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 30/07/2013 2:59 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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

     My interpretation of "SHOULD" as defined by 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp14 is that it is a combination of "MAY" 
and "RECOMMENDATION". Meaning, the reader is encouraged to do something, 
but may choose to do otherwise if understand the consequences of doing 
so. The definition says nothing about the reasons for the recommendation 
(whether they are related to interoperability or not).

     I argue that your (new) definition for "SHOULD" is not based on 
bcp14. If you wish to use it in this manner, I recommend providing your 
own definition which explicitly states that "SHOULD" relates to 
interoperability concerns and "should"/"ought to" mean the same thing 
but without reference to interoperability concerns. As it stands, the 
current document is unnecessarily confusing.

Gili
Received on Tuesday, 30 July 2013 20:08:53 UTC

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