Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to"

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2013-07-31 00:13, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> It is not needed in my opinion. All the spec is written in english (and
> hopefully understandable english for non-native speakers). There are
> provisions for a few keywords that are part of the norm which are defined
> as possibly having a specific meaning. All the rest is purely english text,
> so I don't see why we should clarify this point. Otherwise we'll have to
> precise every word in the spec. It would not make sense either to say that
> if we write "a server might receive a request with a body", the "might"
> here would have to be clarified as being different from the normative one.
> It's the same with "ought to" in my opinion, otherwise you're making a new
> normative word of it, which will prevent us from naturally using it where
> only the english sense is desired.
>
> Hoping this helps,
> Willy

+1