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

Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to"

From: Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 06:41:22 +0200
Message-ID: <51F89572.1080506@dcrocker.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 7/30/2013 5:29 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> The point being that "ought to" being just prose, while "SHOULD" being
> defined by RFC 2119. Both of them having roughly the same meaning in
> English sounds absolutely right to me.

Well, the choice of non-normative vocabulary would do better to be for 
words and phrasing that are not too easily confused with the normative 
terms.  Cognitive separation will help the reader.

Since this is a continuing issue in the IETF, Tony Hansen recruited me 
to work on a document to help folk:

    Non-Normative Synonyms in RFCs

    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hansen-nonkeywords-non2119-02


In looking at this thread, I'm thinking we should take out the word 
'ought'...

d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
Received on Wednesday, 31 July 2013 04:42:02 UTC

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