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 10:47:18 -0400
Message-ID: <51F92376.6010206@bbs.darktech.org>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 31/07/2013 9:44 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> On 7/31/13 10:58 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> This is a *fascinating* thread, but until there's some general IETF consensus on such matters, I'm inclined to leave the decision about specific language in the hands of the editors; they've done well so far.
>>
> There is an IETF consensus on such matters.  It is RFC 2119.

     If I understand you correctly, you agree with Yoav that:

> It's the same with standards. We expect them to tell us what to do. So for the reader, all of the following are equivalent:

     If so, I agree with both of you.

Gili
Received on Wednesday, 31 July 2013 14:47:53 UTC

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