Re: should, ought, must (was: Bug mass filling)
* Frank Küster (firstname.lastname@example.org) [061025 09:49]:
> Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:15:55 -0700, Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> >> Is the word "generally" here an error? I read this as implying the
> >> normal meaning of "should" -- that not everything which violates a
> >> "should" mandate is a bug.
> > I am of the opinion that it is. We can replace non-buggy
> > instances of should by 'ought to be', if needed.
> But please don't forget a "legal definition" of those terms. For me, as
> a non-native speaker, I have no idea whether "ought to" is weaker or
> stronger than "should", or just something different (and what).
I think we should (hehe) use the same definitions as the RFCs - or is
this text non-DFSG-free?