- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 09:50:44 +0200
- 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