On 4 March 2016 at 08:29, Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
When reviewing documents for Gen-ART I quite often find myself asking the
authors something like this (extracted from a recent thread on the Gen-ART
list):
Firstly, shouldn't that "should" be a SHOULD?
Yes, that should be a SHOULD. Good catch
Now if that "should" had been disguised as "ought to" I would probably not
have noticed, but it ought to have been changed to "SHOULD" anyway.
This brings to mind RFC 6919.
I'm happy to encourage disambiguation by avoiding "should" when we *don't*
mean "SHOULD," but we'd have to be quite sure that that is the case. It's
not enough to just say: 'never write "should;"' and we wouldn't want to
give anyone the impression that that's what we're saying.
Cheers
--
Matthew Kerwin
http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/