Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to"
cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> Tue, 30 July 2013 20:10 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 E0DB611E8161 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 13:10:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.849
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.750, 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 74QQXUGV48Sz for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 13:10:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7458C11E8114 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 13:10:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1V4GEA-00020l-U1 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 20:09:02 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 20:09:02 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1V4GEA-00020l-U1@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>) id 1V4GE1-0001uh-7Q for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 20:08:53 +0000
Received: from mail-oa0-f46.google.com ([209.85.219.46]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>) id 1V4GE0-0007wR-9B for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 20:08:53 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id l10so2902954oag.33 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 13:08:26 -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:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-gm-message-state; bh=8ukPQx/ZZFhhO3bkD7sEmrtmqcf4jU8U221AZdO+5Lo=; b=BGYim9xKbV+Ljd9iNLhzQiI/OdYzD1ZHzk/I5l6OCzXkQ9OUkZVB2b9qsFn5pnLgo/ 9fnvISd7bL4RMMJ3lKNSRL6m94Vwjw25ZzBfjbLiTGJA97xCbHRXSrIKsbPVe9etCZzt tgUkzqs3K6xOAn2rKY3zO7CAH2psHYy8OLDvQTJTuARD/WGDCgE7fLI2Fo1JAGnuB2pc 4WI1G0kFAcGeL1F87SN7iw2CWkjhdpl2+56a+FQQyTjXwBauqM3ZBQz6meXbl/NkdYI/ z2yEG/zAeRBDkjyrk092LVQWO5a4kQdrga5M8LjAbiMZLbXq9wM3/LUnxwg5V67fbP0Q YdoA==
X-Received: by 10.43.168.67 with SMTP id nh3mr21911656icc.33.1375214906138; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 13:08:26 -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 kj5sm4151234igb.7.2013.07.30.13.08.24 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 30 Jul 2013 13:08:25 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51F81D34.4050700@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 16:08:20 -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
References: <51F7D951.3050204@bbs.darktech.org> <51F7DBF5.3030403@gmx.de> <51F7E3DE.4020804@bbs.darktech.org> <51F7E4FC.2000404@gmx.de> <51F7E5FC.2050609@bbs.darktech.org> <51F80D0D.9000004@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <51F80D0D.9000004@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlTT1g27M7ETZnHHHyq0KId9DihAWwEiEY+GAKItzpNHiPqDrc1D8KvjaI9yL8qLrYk16BW
Received-SPF: none client-ip=209.85.219.46; envelope-from=cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org; helo=mail-oa0-f46.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.024, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1V4GE0-0007wR-9B c05cad7c4e9461c158ba6c7a832e3dab
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to"
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51F81D34.4050700@bbs.darktech.org>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18987
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 30/07/2013 2:59 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > 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 My interpretation of "SHOULD" as defined by http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp14 is that it is a combination of "MAY" and "RECOMMENDATION". Meaning, the reader is encouraged to do something, but may choose to do otherwise if understand the consequences of doing so. The definition says nothing about the reasons for the recommendation (whether they are related to interoperability or not). I argue that your (new) definition for "SHOULD" is not based on bcp14. If you wish to use it in this manner, I recommend providing your own definition which explicitly states that "SHOULD" relates to interoperability concerns and "should"/"ought to" mean the same thing but without reference to interoperability concerns. As it stands, the current document is unnecessarily confusing. Gili
- 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