- From: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:31:19 -0400
- To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
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