IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to"

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Wed, 31 July 2013 07:53 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 140EA21F9EF8 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 00:53:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 ddf0+8LSjdOp for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 00:53:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E1C811E8168 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 00:53:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1V4RBz-0002MA-WD for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:51:32 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:51:31 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1V4RBz-0002MA-WD@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 1V4RBn-0002LL-H4 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:51:19 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.21]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1V4RBl-0002yn-5C for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:51:19 +0000
Received: from [192.168.43.245] ([89.204.137.53]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M6jIK-1UA9hE44vM-00wYbB for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 09:50:50 +0200
Message-ID: <51F8C1D4.6010409@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 09:50:44 +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: dcrocker@bbiw.net
CC: Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <51F7D951.3050204@bbs.darktech.org> <51F7DBF5.3030403@gmx.de> <51F89572.1080506@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <51F89572.1080506@dcrocker.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:2NUAkqWXB3DKt2LTOjqctCsebBv4Nso89ugDGNTVqx4+z2o6QzJ ccnw5pRNw6JcUOEHd7IdI15d9PFh26VQhQ2FbkQRd8H9QJAi8DQbsaDwkPDnIrcjoJaEkxo qGuf9SJ+JYe4uuUzUV/hR+fWOIshUlX9Q68XiC9JedjBJIYdvz5zDrAZFPEkTbA0eQgonSk hxqS79OOtggDwTQZGzi4w==
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.17.21; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.403, BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1V4RBl-0002yn-5C d247b58ec42e088414f4c3bc4f953156
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to"
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51F8C1D4.6010409@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/19001
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 2013-07-31 06:41, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 7/30/2013 5:29 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> The point being that "ought to" being just prose, while "SHOULD" being
>> defined by RFC 2119. Both of them having roughly the same meaning in
>> English sounds absolutely right to me.
>
> Well, the choice of non-normative vocabulary would do better to be for
> words and phrasing that are not too easily confused with the normative
> terms.  Cognitive separation will help the reader.

That's why we use "ought to", not "should".

> Since this is a continuing issue in the IETF, Tony Hansen recruited me
> to work on a document to help folk:
>
>     Non-Normative Synonyms in RFCs
>
>     http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hansen-nonkeywords-non2119-02
>
>
> In looking at this thread, I'm thinking we should take out the word
> 'ought'...

Consider me confused :-). Why take it out?

Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email