Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" from Martin Thomson on 2013-07-31 (ietf-http-wg@w3.org from July to September 2013)

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:00:40 +0200
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXr9LfWjhS8B086z4iA8uUVU316rKrYtdiGJU5=Ym5HvA@mail.gmail.com>

On 31 July 2013 06:41, Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net> wrote:
> 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.

I believe that RFC 6919 covers a lot of this ground already.

Received on Wednesday, 31 July 2013 05:01:07 UTC