Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to"
Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 30 July 2013 19:01 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 55C3411E8275 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 12:01:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.364, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 Z-CCDYdZvN9J for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 12:01:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 172A611E8243 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 12:01:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1V4F9T-0000W1-M4 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 19:00:07 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 19:00:07 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1V4F9T-0000W1-M4@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1V4F9J-000692-4l for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 18:59:57 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.19]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1V4F9G-000241-Nb for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 18:59:57 +0000
Received: from [192.168.2.117] ([93.217.107.159]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx103) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Lm2lZ-1UVSQD2Ujp-00ZjUi for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 20:59:28 +0200
Message-ID: <51F80D0D.9000004@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 20:59:25 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <51F7D951.3050204@bbs.darktech.org> <51F7DBF5.3030403@gmx.de> <51F7E3DE.4020804@bbs.darktech.org> <51F7E4FC.2000404@gmx.de> <51F7E5FC.2050609@bbs.darktech.org>
In-Reply-To: <51F7E5FC.2050609@bbs.darktech.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:I1zXBLQwDY5bNw6CSVo5czHm0NV7GURWspqItxrsSeZ9VIyaBk0 cNuAlvRNilTT2FvYP7yfegd3DHGF/uHM+U3ncQAUuJESmeCwCultPlxL5oZ69ZwM84HNajM ikjPpOwXZwnvNumR/CyoWz2m9kGRmI9TSDk+sJy/Se1iLWiV7MfGeFTyk1xhn8U6Xvp2Y44 VZF7JUMJPNsv3tXPLj/wA==
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.15.19; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.407, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1V4F9G-000241-Nb 8f87df23defa6273cd4c4541e520f329
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to"
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51F80D0D.9000004@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18984
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>
On 2013-07-30 18:12, cowwoc wrote: > 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 No, SHOULD is not "optional". MAY is optional. > 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"? No, "ought to" means "should", we just want to avoid the confusion with a BCP14-SHOULD. Best regards, Julian
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" cowwoc
- NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" cowwoc
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" cowwoc
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Julian Reschke
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" cowwoc
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" cowwoc
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Julian Reschke
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Julian Reschke
- RE: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Mike Bishop
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Julian Reschke
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" cowwoc
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Julian Reschke
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Willy Tarreau
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Willy Tarreau
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Julian Reschke
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Dave Crocker
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Martin Thomson
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" cowwoc
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Dave Crocker
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Julian Reschke
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Dave Crocker
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Willy Tarreau
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Yoav Nir
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Eliot Lear
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Mark Nottingham
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Michael Sweet
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" Eliot Lear
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to" cowwoc