I DO NOT agree that 2119 is the only source of consequence here.
Perhaps if I showed Dave Cridland an article on netiquete he could try to
be less patronizing. Unlike some here I do not regard the RFC series as
having divine inspiration.
Many other standards organizations use normative language. Though at this
point who is following whom is difficult to determine.
RECOMMENDED is a very useful term to have. Particularly when writing specs
for middleware.
The IETF document describing use of the term is WRONG it needs to be
corrected. Any corrections would only apply to new specs that reference the
new RFC.
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Dave Cridland <dave(_at_)cridland(_dot_)net>
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 1:33 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker
<hallam(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>wrote:
RECOMMENDED is a strong suggestion that the implementation may override
at the discretion of the implementer. SHOULD is normative.
Of course, they both mean the same, because the author has (one assumes)
explicitly said that it means what it says in RFC 2119. Applying your own
meanings to words used in specifications is never going to work, because
otherwise I could start waxing lyrical on what exactly a credential meant
(and in traditional spoken English, it relates to authorization rather than
authentication as here).
In ordinary English, without specific guidance as RFC 2119 gives, I'd
consider "should" and "must" as having virtually the same strength, and
"recommended" being far lower. "Should", however, is used for third parties
and also when a requirement has exceptions, conditions, and so on - it's
also used for general conditional statements, too, such as "I'd like that",
which really expands to "I should like that" rather than "I would like
that". Another case is that if I say "Phillip must have read RFC 2119",
I've made an incorrect statement if he hasn't, whereas if I say "Phillip
should have read RFC 2119", then it's clear Phillip would be the one at
fault.
Much of the problem with actual English in specifications comes from the
fact that specifications are written to tell people what something else
should do, and English as a language is more adept at telling you what you
must do, and ideally by using the imperative form instead.
So while I can write, "You must read RFC 2119. Do not attempt to derive
implied meaning not present in RFC 2119", I can only express a desire that
Phillip should do the same.
Dave.
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/