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: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 01:11:24 -0400
Message-ID: <51F89C7C.10508@bbs.darktech.org>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
CC: Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 31/07/2013 12:41 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 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'..

     +1 :)

Gili
Received on Wednesday, 31 July 2013 05:12:05 UTC

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