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

Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to"

From: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:31:19 -0400
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-id: <B4104335-EC91-4AF4-AE01-7E7CF0933F4D@apple.com>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
I have only one question for this: once it is published, do we list is as a normative reference or an informative one?

<ducking>


On 2013-07-31, at 12:41 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net> 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'...
> 
> d/
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
> 

_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
Received on Wednesday, 31 July 2013 11:31:53 UTC

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