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

Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to"

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 09:50:44 +0200
Message-ID: <51F8C1D4.6010409@gmx.de>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
CC: Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2013-07-31 06:41, 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.

That's why we use "ought to", not "should".

> 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'...

Consider me confused :-). Why take it out?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 31 July 2013 07:51:19 UTC

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