Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to"

[Willy Tarreau <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 09:55:56AM +0200, Dave Crocker wrote:
> I think that the recommended(...) non-normative vocabulary should have 
> substantial cognitive separation from the reserved, normative vocabulary.
> 
> This is a kind of information coding redundancy, to make it more likely 
> that a reader will not think they've read something normative.

Anyway it's not a big problem if they think they read something normative,
especially for confusion between should/SHOULD etc, since in the end, they
should do something for the better. So if they end up producing better
implementations, that's good for everyone. What is important is that poeple
who try to evaluate standard compliance are not confused. And when you're
doing this, you're pretty much aware of the difference in wording.

So in my opinion, this wording encourages everyone to follow the spec as
accurately as possible, and is non-ambiguous for those who want to be picky
about it.

Regards,
Willy