Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to"
Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Tue, 30 July 2013 22:14 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 7549211E823F for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:14:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.412
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.412 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.187, 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 4kw9VH8XZ1N5 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:14:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F298611E8235 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:14:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1V4IAz-0005Hi-Cc for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 22:13:53 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 22:13:53 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1V4IAz-0005Hi-Cc@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1V4IAp-0005El-EB for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 22:13:43 +0000
Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1V4IAo-00032k-Ks for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 22:13:43 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by mail.home.local (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id r6UMDIFs007469; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 00:13:18 +0200
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 00:13:18 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20130730221318.GB7351@1wt.eu>
References: <51F7D951.3050204@bbs.darktech.org> <51F7DBF5.3030403@gmx.de> <51F7E3DE.4020804@bbs.darktech.org> <51F80A4E.9040407@gmx.de> <78425d7972bb4d8f8d0ecbf1df9b55ee@BY2PR03MB025.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <51F81A97.1090309@gmx.de> <20130730214557.GA7351@1wt.eu> <51F83969.5060801@bbs.darktech.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <51F83969.5060801@bbs.darktech.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.283, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.544, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1V4IAo-00032k-Ks 49ea20362c66c798e21b159201d54364
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to"
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20130730221318.GB7351@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18992
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 Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 06:08:41PM -0400, cowwoc wrote: > On 30/07/2013 5:45 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > >I'd say that "ought to" here in the HTTP spect is generally a good friend's > >advice from some other implementors that got trapped and know how to avoid > >this. There's nothing normative in what follows "ought to" so those who > >won't follow it will not cause harm and might only suffer themselves. > >SHOULD is a MUST with an exception if you know you can safely ignore it. > > That is an excellent explanation. Please consider adding it to > section 1.1. 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
- 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