NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to"

cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> Tue, 30 July 2013 15:20 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52CF111E80A2 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:20:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=3.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aT8f2S3GEsu7 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:20:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEECC21F9A21 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:20:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1V4Bhv-0007fZ-5g for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:19:27 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:19:27 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1V4Bhv-0007fZ-5g@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>) id 1V4Bhl-0007dM-Di for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:19:17 +0000
Received: from mail-yh0-f44.google.com ([209.85.213.44]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>) id 1V4Bhg-0004QY-MB for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:19:17 +0000
Received: by mail-yh0-f44.google.com with SMTP id c41so1815771yho.3 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:18:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=EpbQl/R3TSBXs7KuQMZzCmIrv73uYbU/FH34OOOP4Sk=; b=N4NlwGiVArzRwpKdKvHvmiPjKK4ULvVZHxBa3qGcKlPkwPACaDgmNu0/3ljwzhcPcI bPZkqZJIUJ/NBHbsIX0wezyOzjfhLMgINzkihl0ypLpfcCmh2C2z1qrpYQzsdaoCwEvY Q8I3nurtgxlMS19zm9V0ZQBxUe7recINvARY6yjvTdsgjthfxFzpiPQol4BEpn8Hf64A GsYgVzO6tREhI+pAwMsrBCGjyEp4YIFJ1xuoOLaC4sp9RlEkBx8Y6iU7Kya/dz08CTnA zVsdJc3ieDKh3DHnPm4XEg3SFgrbDwHX6C5W99RCbp5OosIYUm7mQA8pj+lyIbaDgtjT gyQQ==
X-Received: by 10.236.209.65 with SMTP id r41mr29828549yho.252.1375197526870; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:18:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (206-248-171-209.dsl.teksavvy.com. [206.248.171.209]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id f67sm91953039yhh.9.2013.07.30.08.18.45 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:18:46 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51F7D951.3050204@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 11:18:41 -0400
From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000104040401000905040704"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmFAyIHFfLZef9HdUGAVLqM+V2Ut3FRVdEFFXjLlKpOPFcJXvodykTUCb06ope1pqiPsKTt
Received-SPF: none client-ip=209.85.213.44; envelope-from=cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org; helo=mail-yh0-f44.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.049, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1V4Bhg-0004QY-MB a1b69eb5ba5a8c9e9d1c3926569fb0ed
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to"
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51F7D951.3050204@bbs.darktech.org>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18976
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Hi,

     According to 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013JulSep/0183.html:

The WG practice has been to replace overly restrictive
SHOULD with a phrase that lacks the normative strictness while still
conveying some importance for the instruction - "ought to".

     I'd like to propose explicitly defining "ought to" alongside 
"SHOULD" because it is not clear what the practical difference is 
between the two. "ought to" is actually a synonym of "should", see 
http://thesaurus.com/browse/ought+to and http://thesaurus.com/browse/should

     It seems that you meant for "ought to" to lie somewhere between 
"MAY" and "SHOULD" but I don't think you're gaining anything by not 
defining exactly what it means, especially for people whose English is 
not their first language.

     Please consider:

 1. Replacing "ought to" with a word that is not a synonym of SHOULD,
    unless you mean SHOULD in which case you should use SHOULD :)
 2. Defining "ought to" explicitly at the top of the document.

Thank you :)
Gili