Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to"

[cowwoc <[e-mail]>]

On 30/07/2013 12:08 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2013-07-30 18:03, cowwoc wrote:
>> Julian,
>>
>>      I understand the "legal" difference between the two but your reply
>> didn't actually explain the benefit of using "ought to" instead of
>> "SHOULD" (especially in light of the fact that the former causes
>> confusion).
>
> The reason we don't use SHOULD is that BCP14 keywords SHOULD be used 
> sparingly:
>
>    Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care
>    and sparingly.  In particular, they MUST only be used where it is
>    actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has
>    potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For
>    example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method
>    on implementors where the method is not required for
>    interoperability.
>
> Best regards, Julian

     I understand this line of reasoning for MUST, but I fail to see the 
logic for SHOULD which by definition (being optional) does not "impose a 
particular method on implementers where the method is not required for 
interoperability".

     Are you looking for a way to say "this can be implemented one many 
ways, one approach is to X"?

Gili